I built up a venerable human cleric for his campaign, but when I showed him my character, we ran into some disagreements.
You see, I had listed "Walking Cane" as a melee weapon on my character and used the stats for the greatclub to represent it.
The DM accused me of "making up weaons" and told me to remove it. When I pointed out to him that it was just a greatclub being reflavored he then responded with "well fine, but since it's MY campaign, if you insist on using a walking cane as a weapon it will use the stats of a quarterstaff instead. That makes more sense to me after all."
When I protested, he put his foot down, saying that I didn't have a say in the matter other than that I could choose between quarterstaff stats--or no walking cane weapon at all.
Should the DM have this much control over flavor aspects of the game? What can I do to show him that there is nothing wrong with my way of doing it? What would you do as DM? As a player?
Help.
Leave. This douche all ready sounds like the type that if you don't bend over all the way to your ankles and say please he will make this a bad experience.
This.
I've played under similar DMs, and it's not a pleasant experience. More than once I've had to choose "no game" over "their game".
But you dont need to burn any bridges either.
Theres no need for hard feelings.
Just tell him, your looking for a more flexible player-oriented style of gaming. And youl continue looking. Tell him the players he has seem to enjoy his games, and (genuinely) wish him the best.
Theres nothing wrong with different ways of doing things. They enrich humanity. Just find people who share your way of doing things.
Should the DM have this much control over flavor aspects of the game? What can I do to show him that there is nothing wrong with my way of doing it? What would you do as DM? As a player?
It's the DMs game, if you can't work something out with him, then find another game. Different DMs and different games have different standards for what sort of fudging is allowed.
That said, I'm not sure I would let that in my game. The weapon reskin you are doing here doesn't make much sense, and sounds like possible cheese. You have turned an awkward two handed weapon into something you can smuggle anywhere, and I have had players try to abuse that sort of thing in the past.
Jay
On a more personal brick-tossing note, he needs to STFU. A Quarterstaff is taller than the person wielding it, and has no relation to a cane whatsoever. His method is actually MORE abusable, because you could take the Gladiator Article Feat that makes it a Double Weapon with the Defensive Property. If he wanted to "put his foot down," he should just say that it counts as a normal club, as you're walking around with it one-handed. He sounds more petulant at having others "defy" him, however, which is simply petty.
also it can depend on what is traditionally viewed as a "greatclub" in the campaign world or that group in particular.
if it's viewed as the 4th edition greatclub, have the DM look at the picture on page 216. it's not that much longer then a dagger (if that dagger is a foot long from blade tip to hilt end, the greatclub is about 2 feet-ish) at that point having it look like a large cudgel or shillelagh is very much possible.
if it's more akin the 3.x greatclub (where it's a log with a plate attached) or a tetsubo... not so much.
If the outlook is bad from there, run away and never look back.
I'd argue a greatclub is a pretty weird match for a walking stick. I probably would have brought it up at my table too. If what you want is a walking stick you can whap people with, then it's just as good as a quarterstaff as anything.
Just don't let this stuff bother you overmuch. Reflavoring is a neat option if the DM is alright with it, but it can really go some wonky ways if it's not kept under control. I can see why he'd like to keep it to a minimum.
If you were trying to pass off a greatsword's stats as a walking cane, dude would have a point, but not so much.
I actually started to question ising greatclub stats for a cane instead of a regular club, but a club's truncheon sized, whereas a greatclub would be boken sized and thus more reasonable to lean on. And a cane is not long enough to approximate a q-staff.
So point that out to him and see how that flies.
Now here's why. An old man with a walking stick is unlikely to be asked to disarm. Where as an old man leaning on great club would be. So basically that great club walking stick is disguised weapon that is much more potent than it should be.
As for the suspicion that there may be more conflicts remember conflict always involve two sides. Often the problem is personality conflicts. In my game I have a player who need details. I'm more direct and if I don't take that player's need for detail into account when ruling on something it frustrates him.
Also you see problems like this when you join a game where the DM has an idea of what he wants as the main characters in the story. Often a DM shoots down ideas but should probably explain what is happening.
Walking Cane = Quarterstaff sounds much more plausible. I would allow that with no hesitation.
I am joining up with a different group of gamers with a DM that I have never played under before.
I built up a venerable human cleric for his campaign, but when I showed him my character, we ran into some disagreements.
You see, I had listed "Walking Cane" as a melee weapon on my character and used the stats for the greatclub to represent it.
The DM accused me of "making up weaons" and told me to remove it. When I pointed out to him that it was just a greatclub being reflavored he then responded with "well fine, but since it's MY campaign, if you insist on using a walking cane as a weapon it will use the stats of a quarterstaff instead. That makes more sense to me after all."
When I protested, he put his foot down, saying that I didn't have a say in the matter other than that I could choose between quarterstaff stats--or no walking cane weapon at all.
Should the DM have this much control over flavor aspects of the game? What can I do to show him that there is nothing wrong with my way of doing it? What would you do as DM? As a player?
Help.
You were out of line. A walking cane with the same stats as a greatclub? No. I would not allow that in a game I was running, the discrepancy is to much. A greatclub is 10 pounds of reinforced wood, not easy to conceal or wield. I would allow you your choice of a club (for a cane style walking stick) or a quarterstaff (for a taller walking staff). A cane is only a few pounds (I make handcrafted canes and walking staves as a hobby) and a walking staff only a few more than that... much lighter than a greatclub and not reinforced.
That said... the DM was an ass about it. He was tactless and rude. At best he was just trying to establish his place as the "boss" of the game, at worst he was being a
. Neither of you were really in the right, as I think your request for a 2 pound cane to do damage as a 10 pound reinforced greatclub was a bit much... but he came off all wrong in his approach for denying your request.Personally... I would give the game a chance. One unfortunate clash of personalities does not mean the game will be bad. Give it a shot and try to keep an open mind.
On the other hand, the Players Handbook has clear illustrations of what these weapons actually look like. A "club" seems about the same size as a cops nightstick. By contrast, a "greatclub" really is about the size of a cane.
Heres a cane that can probably serve as a "greatclub". If the cane is made out of iron, or heavily reinforced with it, it could weigh 10 lbs. (Id probably rule a specialty item like this is necessarily a "masterwork" item, with appropriate costs, and the character would have to use a Bluff check if trying to bypass disarming.)
I think a lot of the problem is people over visualizing that all greatclubs need to be those bulky, 'lots of small logs capped with iron dealies ogres run around with and that's not really in the spirit of 4e.
A greatclub for 4e is 'stick weapon longer than your arm, but shorter than a q-staff' and should be left at that.
A greatclub weighs more than two longswords. (;) It even weighs more than a gallon of milk!) A greatclub the size of a cane would have to be made out metal, so its not an "ordinary" cane. (Hence masterwork.) Trying to pass it off as a walking cane could require a Bluff check to move the cane in a way that made it seem as if it was light.
Under simple, two-handed weapon:
Greatclub: +2 2d4
Those are the mechanics of the greatclub. So as such if the player is using the cane in both hands when fighting, the weapon in question appears to be simple to use, and if trained to use a cane properly as a weapon would deal out such damage then nothing is wrong with it.
Hell, we can look at history to see how effective a cane is, there is a Parisian-born martial art made in the 19th century on how to use the cane as a weapon. When trained properly the cane could fracture limbs, buckle in the skull of someone, etc.
My problem isnt the size, but the weight.
Winner.
A blunt weapon gains its killing power from one factor and one factor alone. Raw impact. That is gained through weight and the power behind the swing. a 2-3 pound cane will NEVER be as effective a weapon as a 10 point reinforced club designed to be wielded in two hands.
I am not saying a cane is not an effective weapon, and any player in my game would be more than welcome to use one as such, but it would not have the stats of a greatclub, it simple does not make sense.
I realize a greatclub can be roughly the same length as a cane... it is also 3 to 5 times the weight depending on the heft of your cane as well as being reinforced.
Haldrik: I think a full length walking stick would function as a quarterstaff pretty well, but not a cane. Also, a walking stick tends to be a bit lighter than a quarterstaff and would be more prone to breakage if used as a weapon... I would probably give it a small chance to break when you strike someone in heavy armor or any monster that relies on scales or sheer toughness for AC. By nature a walking stick tends to be fairly light so as to not weigh down the person carrying it.
Game stats... I would probably have the player roll a second D20 and if it matches his strike roll the stick breaks. I do not like assigning 1 or 20 for breakage since it means you always miss or hit when you get breakage... which just doesn't make sense. Unless of course they made an effort to craft/buy a walking staff that was well made enough to hold up to combat, which would cost just a few coins extra... not masterwork or anything, just that they made the effort to get a sturdy walking staff.
What I was proposing was hardly a pidly little stick. If that's what you think I meant, then it's no wonder it doesn't make any sense to you. I was thinking something more like a steel cane which could esily weight 10 pounds and deal lots of damage when wielded 2-handed as a weapon.
The DM was entirely in his rights! It is his game world after all....
Unless steel canes don't exist in his game world, I think the DM is just being a power-mad deusch.
and I agree that a friggin walking cane should use Quarterstaff stats... a walking cane a greatclub?!?!?!? get real!!
If you don't like it, leave his game and find another.
What is a greatclub anyways? A big cudgel, often capped with metal bands.
That sounds kinda' like a steel cane to me.
Quarterstaff stats would work just fine and had the DM just said something like "well, what about qurterstaff stats? That seems like it would be more appropriate" then that would have been perfectly fine with me. Except the DM didn't do that. He put his foot down. He was trying to "cull the new guy" so to sspeak.
Right now, I am not nearly concerned about having my way as I am by just how much of a big deal th DM is making out of it for the sake of "showing whose boss."
1. Disallowing the modification
2. The manner in which it was disallowed.
In 1. I think the GM was well within his rights. I would never accept, if a player suggested that his walking cane has the stats of a greatclub. The objective here is clearly to have a highly distinguishable weapon as easily concealed. Even when made of metal it would be big, heavy and impossible to walk with 'cane like'. In addition the weight is not the only thing determining the damage, as someone suggested. It's also the leverage. As in length of the shaft and how much of the weight is in the top.
2. If the GM was a dick about it, then that's not good. Ofcourse you also have to consider your own behaviour when he first denied it. Were you being confrontational? Anyways if it left a bad taste, try to discuss it with the GM privately. If you still can't get along, then there's propably nothing else to do than to switch groups.
The objective here is clearly to have a highly distinguishable weapon as easily concealed.
Says who? Certainly not me. I never once said that was an objective. I am roleplaying a venerable old man with 8 Strength. Old men don't wield greatclubs, as that just doesn't make any sense! But if pressed to, they do wield canes. As a laser cleric, I only plan on using it to make (crappy) opportunity attacks anyways, so its not a huge deal for me. I just thought it fit the character archetype.
If the DM said it was readily recognizeable as a weapon by NPCs for balance reasons, I would be just fine with that as I am a big advocate of being able to change flavor without changing mechanics and other things (things that would otherwise give an advantage such as the aforementioned "concealed" weapon).
In any case, I'm surprised that most people don't see this as a good roleplaying opportunity. "You wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick, would you?" I shudder to think of groups that lose out on awesome roleplaying moments such as that just because their DM is a tyrant over flavor.
Well, the OP can consider himself lucky. The DH might have said: "Your cane is a simple club, not a greatclub". Which probably is the closest thing a cane can be comared to.
Which isn't really the point anyways. Several posters have already shown that different people see canes being wielded differently. It's all in the mind's eye--a matter of opinion and personal imagination. Personally, I see the cane being wielded like a baseball bat--with power.
I personally think it is a great way to include roleplaying while also not hindering the player stat wise. Since a normal player would choose a greatclub over a club if planning on wielding something two-handed so why should the person who has a interesting character concept be hindered mechanically?
QFT.
Says who? Certainly not me.
Says you, just here.
In any case, I'm surprised that most people don't see this as a good roleplaying opportunity. "You wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick, would you?" I shudder to think of groups that lose out on awesome roleplaying moments such as that just because their DM is a tyrant over flavor.
If it's just a matter of flavor, why do you insist it has greatclub stats? Why not just accept a masterwork club stats? How does that change your flavor? It doesn't. It seems (though this is a misconception, because you said you do not) that you're trying to gain maximum game mechanical advantage with the excuse of flavor.
That being said, if the DM is reasonable and will listen to a case made by you, maybe you can meet in the middle. If he will brook no reflavouring, then this may not be an option, though. If he is open to it, but just doesn't agree with your choice, then he may have his reasons. He may have certain issues with the concept, but, having not been privy to the original conversation it is hard to say. You may be able to revisit this and discuss it.
He may not like the fact that you are trying to slip a two-handed weapon into the game in such a way that it would, through the flavour, allow you to bring it anywhere because it is a "walking stick". This could be solved by him simply stating that the walking stick is no ordinary walking stick and will be taken from you as the obvious weapon that it is in certain situations.
He may not agree with the greatclub aspect as he may think it stretches incredulity too much. Maybe reflavour a mace as a walking stick. It can be used two-handed so can still work for your two-handed motif. The above "obvious" flaw can still apply.
His problem may also be in your fluff. You described your character as venerable and he may be perceiving this as weak. For this reason, he may view you as wanting a walking stick as a greatclub as being too much out of character. If this is the case, then a little more discussion may be warranted.
Personally, I would have no problems with this as long as you realized that your stick would be perceived as the weapon it is. I would also be open to any discussion of the issue, too.
possible templates for a walking cane
Club +2 1d6 3lb Mace
Greatclub +2 2d4 10lb twohanded Mace
Quarterstaff +2 1d8 4lb twohanded Staff
A tall walking stick should probably be a quarterstaff. A really heavy solid metal pipe or a heavy wooden stick with a 4 kilogram steel head at the top could probably work as a greatclub, as long as it has to be wielded in two hands, but this weapon could only be used as a walking stick by a very strong person (about str 14+), it´s simply too heavy. An ordinary walking stick, about a yard tall and made of tough iron wood, hard and durable but light enough to wield in one hand could work as a club. The last one could probably be passed of as an ordinary walking stick, the quarterstaff too in some situations, I doubt the big frikkin heavy metal head-bacher would be accepted into the kings court. Also remember that a well-made cane is probably much more expensive than a greatclub, about 10g if it´s good enough quality not to break in combat.
If my player wants to call his greatclub a cane and have it perform exactly the same in all mechanical instances, great. It shows investment in the character and a proclivity for trying fun things. That's exactly the kind of player I want at my table.
If it's just a matter of flavor, why do you insist it has greatclub stats? Why not just accept a masterwork club stats? How does that change your flavor? It doesn't. It seems (though this is a misconception, because you said you do not) that you're trying to gain maximum game mechanical advantage with the excuse of flavor.
Also this is probably the reason your DM shot it down so fast. Try to DM a while and see for yourself just how often players try to get mechanical benefits for no or negligible drawbacks and only bending the rules a little. if you don´t believe me, you need to check on the CharOp forum more. the DM has to say NO, a lot!
Also this is probably the reason your DM shot it down so fast. Try to DM a while and see for yourself just how often players try to get mechanical benefits for no or negligible drawbacks and only bending the rules a little. if you don´t believe me, you need to check on the CharOp forum more. the DM has to say NO, a lot!
As a perennial DM myself, I see no problem with calling a greatclub a staff. It behaves in exactly the same manner mechanically. As I said before, this is exactly the kind of thing that should be encouraged at the table, not quashed.
Edit:
If it's just a matter of flavor, why do you insist it has greatclub stats? Why not just accept a masterwork club stats? How does that change your flavor? It doesn't. It seems (though this is a misconception, because you said you do not) that you're trying to gain maximum game mechanical advantage with the excuse of flavor.
What, precisely, is the advantage being gained here over just using a greatclub? It's a minor reflavoring (one weapon that does have stats in the PHB into another that doesn't) and it allows him to pursue his concept without it costing him mechanically. Playing interesting concepts shouldn't involve being penalized in terms of effectiveness; that just makes outside the box thinking less attractive to players.
One of my players wanted his barbarian to have a heavy duty belt to hold up his fur loincloth...Like the old He-man action figures.
He also wanted this belt to function as plate armour for his abdomen, whereas the rest of his body was largely unprotected.
The system we played under accomodated well for this (separate HP for different bodyparts etc.) So I was inclined to say yes to his idea.
However in one instance when his character was captured he was suprised and a little miffed the guards had taken his belt
I'd say give it another shot, I think he might have knee-jerked a reaction because he didnt fully understand your logic with this weapon. And thought you where trying to sneak some powergaming into his group.
It's difficult to really know how the discussion went down since I wasnt there, but I'm assuming that both of you can discuss maturely and see things from the other persons point of view. But don't assume he will let you go through with it after all. But atleast you established how compatible you will be.
If he cannot do that, and continues to enforce himself as "da big cheese" then head for the hills.
It seems to me that the problem your DM has is in calling this a walking cane. If I understood your posts correctly, what you want is a greatclub weapon that has been shaped to also be functional as a cane. It has all the mechanical attributes of a greatclub. It just happens to be the appropriate length for a cane for your character, with a beautiful carved or metal handle, etc.
As a DM if I saw someone write walking cane as their weapon, I would wonder what they were trying to pull. If they wrote walking cane (greatclub) or greatclub (walking cane), I would probably be quicker to understand their purpose.
The previous assumes that I am correct in my belief that you weren't hoping to fool NPC's into thinking that that huge stick you carry wouldn't hurt if you whacked them with it.
As long as you aren't using the "walking cane" definition to gain some sort of advantage, like reducing it's perception of deadliness to other characters or or considering it to be their god's chosen weapon, it shouldn't be a problem to have your character refer to it inaccurately.
I'm so out.
For example, say the OP's party was granted audience to speak with the King -- but only if they approach unarmed. Everyone else would have to temporarily forfeit their weapons while he could claim, "Oh, I'm a harmless old man and am dependent on my walking stick. You wouldn't take away an old man's cane would you?"
To be fair to his hypothetical teammate that uses a "real" Greatclub, the guards would have to say to him, "Yes, walking sticks are dangerous weapons and illegal in this city without a permit -- especially in the King's presence. Now hand it over!" but I suspect the OP would argue against that response too.
If the guards allow him to pass who else do you think is going to be using a "walking stick" next adventure?
I like it when my PCs use real disguised weapons like sword canes, switchblades or improvised saps but I feel this is an example of trying to deceive the DM -- not the NPCs -- because he is using the "re-skinning" argument. The fact that he refuses to use a Quarterstaff's stats suggests the real motive is not just flavor but to gain an in-game advantage.
It seems a bit silly to claim an ordinary walking cane would dish out as much damage as a great club.
Note that he didn't say you couldn't use a great club if you wanted, just not one disguised as a cane....
Besides, you know the general rule. The DMs got the final say. Always has, always will. Period.
The fact that he refuses to use a Quarterstaff's stats suggests the real motive is not just flavor but to gain an in-game advantage.
I still don't see the advantage. It's a flavor thing he's doing for his character. He should be able to do it without taking a massive mechanical hit. You treat it like a greatclub when you need stats for it and a walking stick when you're drawing a portrait of your character. Problem solved.
My biggest problem with the OP's request is that he is essentially asking his DM for a disguised weapon. I like "re-skinning" items and powers but it should be purely used for flavor and not an in-game advantage.
Actually he stated he would mindn't if it was immediately recognizable as a weapon.
It really is a greatclub.
Hes using a greatclub instead of an ordinary cane.
You can make a greatclub out of metal. Its legal.
If its metal - and not wood - itl be thin.
Its the same size and shape as a cane, or a baseball bat.
The only difference is its several times heavier. But this heaviness and the exertion to move it can be noticeable to observers.
IShould the DM have this much control over flavor aspects of the game? What can I do to show him that there is nothing wrong with my way of doing it? What would you do as DM? As a player?
Help.
Yes, the DM should have that much control. All you can do about it is make a decent arguement, and then drop it if he insists. If it's a big enough deal, leave the game. DMs have absolute control over their games, but if they're horrible DMs, they soon won't have a game left.
I'd say leave. The point of GMing in DnD (and it says this in the DMG) is to say, "Yes," to your players. If they are reflavoring something in a way that has absolutely NO mechanical change involved, there should be absolutely no problem.
Within reason. A great club is a very large, heavy piece of wood. A walking stick for a venerable old man, is not. I can totally see why the DM ruled the way he did.
We get excited about ideas for our characters, and about plots for our adventures. Part of the fun is picking up where the other DM left off. Collective story arcs seem to emerge with a life of their own.
If someone is DMing for the first time, we give em a break and encourage em. Its fun.
Honestly, I dont understand how there can be any other way of running a campaign.
Describing it as a crude crutch could also be interesting.
Its reasonable.
A normal, non-weapon-constructed everyday walking cane would be an improvised weapon - no proficiency bonus, 1d4 damage. Just like hitting someone with any other random non-weapon object.
A more sturdily constructed cane, perhaps with a metal knob on the end, could do some damage, and could probably get by as a club.
A VERY sturdily constructed cane, one that was meant to double as a weapon for self-defense, might very well be hefty enough and have a studded or otherwise dangerous head-piece, and I could certainly see it using greatclub stats. But everyone who looked at it would know it was useable as a decent weapon. It's the sor t of thing joggers might carry through bad neighborhoods.
I think the concealability is getting most people up in arms. If you take that away and make it so that its a cane, but peolpe can look at it and go "man, that thing would hurt if you swung it upside someone's head", it's fine.
Reflavoring is wonderful, but there DOES need to be a line. Otherwise you get people asking to reflavor their Executioner's Axe as a common shovel, or their Mordenkrad as a hobo's bindle, for "RP purposes". Then they get angry when guards treat them as armed, etc, and claim that you the DM are metagaming, and that no guard would ever treat a common shovel as a dangerous weapon.
Why yes, players have done things like that to me, why do you ask?
To you again: Look at PHB p. 217.
Look at the picture, upper row, 3rd from left: Greatclub.
Height: About as high as a heavy crossbow is long, which is - rough estimate - somewhere around 50 to 70 cm maximum. A Greatclub is not a small tree.
And I say right back to you....look again. Where did I ever say it was a small tree? I said it was a big, heavy piece of wood, and if it weighs twice as much as a longsword, then I'm right.
my 4th edition fighter has 3 levels of axes: 2-handed greataxe, 1-handed khopesh & throwing axes. while the greataxe & khopesh are standard issue, the 4 little throwing axes are backups "just in case". that "just in case" happened much more then you expected it to.
my 3rd ed warlock who relies virtually entirely on his eldritch blast has 3 knives (2 normal, 1 silver) and the +1 club we found just in case we get into melee combat i can't escape from. he's not the most proficient melee combatant, but i know a certain gargoyle who will never attempt to grapple me again after last week's shenanigans.
having a crappy backup weapon means that if all else fails, at least he's not entirely helpless.
Seraphim: Reflavoring is wonderful, but there DOES need to be a line.
There needs to be clarification. Special advantages require special costs (feat, gp cost, skill checks, level/tier restriction, etc.)
But in this case, the point is roleplay. The old Cleric could likewise use a longsword as a cane, and in the exact same way, complain about depriving an old person of their walking implement.
RavingDork dumped Str, and is having fun with this strategy. More power to him.
But whats the weight brother? Saying a cane can have greatclub stats is like saying my short sword has great sword stats...
. . . and if it's a short sword you need to wield two-handed that counts as a heavy blade, that would be fine by me.
RD,
It seems to me that the problem your DM has is in calling this a walking cane. If I understood your posts correctly, what you want is a greatclub weapon that has been shaped to also be functional as a cane. It has all the mechanical attributes of a greatclub. It just happens to be the appropriate length for a cane for your character, with a beautiful carved or metal handle, etc.
As a DM if I saw someone write walking cane as their weapon, I would wonder what they were trying to pull. If they wrote walking cane (greatclub) or greatclub (walking cane), I would probably be quicker to understand their purpose.
The previous assumes that I am correct in my belief that you weren't hoping to fool NPC's into thinking that that huge stick you carry wouldn't hurt if you whacked them with it.
My character sheet specifically said "walking cane (treat as a greatclub)" in the equipment section.
Actually he stated he wouldn't mind if it was immediately recognizable as a weapon.
Fixed it for you.
Also, I don't like that many posters are still referring to the weapon as a "walking stick." It's horribly misleading. It's a sturdy cane made of metal--as much a weapon as is a sword cane or a baseball bat.
I also don't like how posters keep saying things like "It can't be a greatclub! You're an old man!" What does my character's age or physical capability have to do with anything? If my old guy picked up a real club or greatclub (as opposed to a metal cane) and wielded it terribly in combat, none of you would have any complaints at all. After all, if an olf guy with 8 strength and no melee powers picked up ANY melee weapon--they would be terrible at swinging it around!
That's what I'm trying to portray with this character. His can is his last ditch weapon for warding off brutes that come too close. The chances of him hitting or doing any real damage or pitiful, as one would expect, but it's there.
As I said before, I don't particularly care if it is readily recognizeable as a weapon and gets taken away by guards (all the DM has to do is explain it off as "they are particularly astute guards who know that such mundane things as sturdy metal canes can be used as weapons against their king just as readily as any mace," and I will be quite happy). The only reason I brought up the Lord of the Rings quote at all was to show that it could make for a good roleplaying opportunity--but only in a game where the DM is leniant and actually trusts his players. God forbid a DM has a little faith and trust in those he games with!
Fixed it for you.
Oops. :embarrass
If he was a fighter, it might be an issue, but a laser cleric? Let him have it. If he starts to abuse it, then pull him up on it and warn him that that isn't cool. If he keeps going on with mechanical abuse, rocks fall, everyone (or just the old man) dies. Problem solved.
I would rather kill it now before it spreads, I hate retconing and an automatic TPK is not a preferable solution to the problem.
It´s not that big a deal, not for the player and unless the OP makes one, no problem for the group either. just choose how you want the weapon to work, how it should look and what you pay for the reflavouring, and then ask your DM (nicely) to allow it. Be reasonable, an 8 strength cleric will not be able to make a solid metal stick look light as a wooden one, anything that adds to damage is obvious, anything other than an ordinary weapon WILL cost extra, and so on. And if the DM still doesn´t allow it, just use the cane as an improvised weapon and stop making waves.
just choose how you want the weapon to work, how it should look and what you pay for the reflavouring, and then ask your DM (nicely) to allow it.
Why on earth should reflavoring, appropriate to the GM's campaign world, have to cost anything...ever?
That just does not make any sense to me at all.
My character sheet specifically said "walking cane (treat as a greatclub)" in the equipment section.
Fixed it for you.
Also, I don't like that many posters are still referring to the weapon as a "walking stick." It's horribly misleading. It's a sturdy cane made of metal--as much a weapon as is a sword cane or a baseball bat.
I also don't like how posters keep saying things like "It can't be a greatclub! You're an old man!" What does my character's age or physical capability have to do with anything? If my old guy picked up a real club or greatclub (as opposed to a metal cane) and wielded it terribly in combat, none of you would have any complaints at all. After all, if an olf guy with 8 strength and no melee powers picked up ANY melee weapon--they would be terrible at swinging it around!
That's what I'm trying to portray with this character. His can is his last ditch weapon for warding off brutes that come too close. The chances of him hitting or doing any real damage or pitiful, as one would expect, but it's there.
As I said before, I don't particularly care if it is readily recognizeable as a weapon and gets taken away by guards (all the DM has to do is explain it off as "they are particularly astute guards who know that such mundane things as sturdy metal canes can be used as weapons against their king just as readily as any mace," and I will be quite happy). The only reason I brought up the Lord of the Rings quote at all was to show that it could make for a good roleplaying opportunity--but only in a game where the DM is leniant and actually trusts his players. God forbid a DM has a little faith and trust in those he games with!
So basically this DM's problem is that you want to call the greatclub your character carries a walking cane because he leans on it more than he bashes heads with it?
If you want to play in his game, go ahead and call it a greatclub. Then whenever you describe what your character is doing, say "I'm leaning on my greatclub as I wait for xxxx" or "I use my greatclub as a walking stick to get up the stairs". This guy (and many of the posters on this thread) are intensely hung up on the name.
If you want to play in his game, go ahead and call it a greatclub. Then whenever you describe what your character is doing, say "I'm leaning on my greatclub as I wait for xxxx" or "I use my greatclub as a walking stick to get up the stairs". This guy (and many of the posters on this thread) are intensely hung up on the name.
I'm willing to meet the DM half way. I may even go with the quarterstaff stats if I must. But if I am forced to break my percieved character role by portraying it as a greatclub all the time I would just as rather not play in that kind of game.
A feeble old man swinging a greatclub makes as little sense to me as it does anyone else. I just don't see why I should be punished for describing it in a way that DOES make sense. Why should I be punished any more than my 8 strength and total absence of Strength based powers already does?
:D
"Walking cane" = sophisticated luminary.
"Greatclub" = barbaric moron.
"Its not a greatclub, its a walking cane."
THIS:
Is a REALISTIC Greatclub, about three to four feet long, weighing about 5-6 pounds (6-8 if it's made entirely of metal like this one is). It is nowhere near 10 pounds, and the only reason an ogre can swing a tree-trunk at you and call it a "Large Greatclub" is because it's DnD, and it's twice your size (hence, a Greatclub 6-8 feet long and weighing between 10-16 pounds).
THIS:
Is a Steel Cane that's battle-ready. They're between 3-4 feet long, and weigh about 5-6 pounds, more if you're taller. As you can see, it's almost exactly the same, the weight distribution is simply more balanced in a Greatclub.
Man, the knee-jerk reactions around here REALLY depress me sometimes.
Ok, first off, NO plausible weapon weighs 10 pounds. A well-made Claymore weighed 3-3.5 pounds, MAX. DnD has always just been full of **** when it comes to equipment weight. Apparently a heavier weapon makes it more "Epic" instead of just being idiotic and just screaming, "I've got a Buster Sword!! WEEEE!!!"
THIS:
Is a REALISTIC Greatclub, about three to four feet long, weighing about 5-6 pounds (6-8 if it's made entirely of metal like this one is). It is nowhere near 10 pounds, and the only reason an ogre can swing a tree-trunk at you and call it a "Large Greatclub" is because it's DnD, and it's twice your size (hence, a Greatclub 6-8 feet long and weighing between 10-16 pounds).
THIS:
Is a Steel Cane that's battle-ready. They're between 3-4 feet long, and weigh about 5-6 pounds, more if you're taller. As you can see, it's almost exactly the same, the weight distribution is simply more balanced in a Greatclub.
Man, the knee-jerk reactions around here REALLY depress me sometimes.
I was told that the extra weight was to acount for the sheathe, slip, or holster of the weapon in question. When put that way, most of the weapons become much more accurate in terms of weight listings.
But that's off-topic...
Thanks for the pics. I pictured my cane being something like the first picture, except it would have a large decorative head/handle rather than a loop. Frankly, I'm surprised neither the DM or anyone here has said the cane should use mace stats.
I wish class features gave Wizards and other mages including Laser Clerics a *magical* way to make Basic Melee attacks, especially for Opp Attacks. The point has nothing to do with damage dealing, but simply a mechanically viable way to maintain mage flavor.
The solution seems easy enough. Design a "superior weapon proficiency feat" for mages that makes Basic Melee attacks, but with a particular damage type: Force, Radiant, Cold, etc. The damage would be about 1d8, tho it could vary depending on damage type, with resistable Fire dealing 1d10 and less-resistable Force dealing 1d6.
The point of the feat has nothing to do with how much damage it does. Its just a way to stay in character, without having gaming mechanics force a character into silly scenarios (like an old man carrying an inappropriate weapon because all characters need to make opp attacks).
I was told that the extra weight was to acount for the sheathe, slip, or holster of the weapon in question. When put that way, most of the weapons become much more accurate in terms of weight listings.
That WOULD! Nice! :D
Crimson Lancer, you get extra XP for your google-fu!
:D Being a Martial Artist, I MUST defend silly things like this.
Why on earth should reflavoring, appropriate to the GM's campaign world, have to cost anything...ever?
The Spell Thematics feat and Wield Oversize being a freaking Epic feat taught a lot of people that you must always be punished for thinking outside of the book.
Luckily, if you check your 4e PH, you'll see that they actually tell you that the weapons listed can stand in for other weapons. So not even ruleslawyers can suck the fun out of it.
The Spell Thematics feat and Wield Oversize being a freaking Epic feat taught a lot of people that you must always be punished for thinking outside of the book.
Luckily, if you check your 4e PH, you'll see that they actually tell you that the weapons listed can stand in for other weapons. So not even ruleslawyers can suck the fun out of it.
What page, paragraph, and sentence? I so want to show that to the DM. "See it's in the rules!" :P
I'lm going to direct him to this thread as well.
I'm willing to meet the DM half way. I may even go with the quarterstaff stats if I must. But if I am forced to break my percieved character role by portraying it as a greatclub all the time I would just as rather not play in that kind of game.
A feeble old man swinging a greatclub makes as little sense to me as it does anyone else. I just don't see why I should be punished for describing it in a way that DOES make sense. Why should I be punished any more than my 8 strength and total absence of Strength based powers already does?
What I was getting at is that all you were doing was picking a size walking cane that is equivalent to a greatclub. Your new DM is hung up on the term walking cane. He thinks this means a slender, easily breakable stick or a staff that's taller than you. This isn't what you want. So, every time you use the thing, emphasize how you are using it like a walking cane. But don't use the phrase "walking cane". Call it your "greatcane" or your "really big cane" or "the thing I club people with when I can't laserbeam them". Anything that helps your DM get past his mental block.
Frankly, I'm surprised neither the DM or anyone here has said the cane should use mace stats.
Sigh. Frankly, I'm surprised too.
He may not agree with the greatclub aspect as he may think it stretches incredulity too much. Maybe reflavour a mace as a walking stick. It can be used two-handed so can still work for your two-handed motif. The above "obvious" flaw can still apply.
Sigh. Frankly, I'm surprised too.
*ahem* Sorry. :embarrass
*ahem* Sorry. :embarrass
No problem. Just an aside, though, if you were really trying to milk the system, the mace would have been a better choice. As a versatile weapon used in both hands, its damage is just a point better than the great club.
No problem. Just an aside, though, if you were really trying to milk the system, the mace would have been a better choice. As a versatile weapon used in both hands, its damage is just a point better than the great club.
That just shows that "milking the system," as you say, was never my goal.
Frankly, I'm surprised neither the DM or anyone here has said the cane should use mace stats.
The mace would be counterintuitive. If the whole point is that you're so feeble (which, with an 8 Str, you aren't - but let's overlook that for a moment for the sake of argument) that you have to wield the thing in two hands for it to even count as a weapon, representing it with the stats of a one-handed weapon wouldn't make any sense.
Ok, first off, NO plausible weapon weighs 10 pounds. A well-made Claymore weighed 3-3.5 pounds, MAX. DnD has always just been full of **** when it comes to equipment weight. Apparently a heavier weapon makes it more "Epic" instead of just being idiotic and just screaming, "I've got a Buster Sword!! WEEEE!!!"
THIS:
Is a REALISTIC Greatclub, about three to four feet long, weighing about 5-6 pounds (6-8 if it's made entirely of metal like this one is). It is nowhere near 10 pounds, and the only reason an ogre can swing a tree-trunk at you and call it a "Large Greatclub" is because it's DnD, and it's twice your size (hence, a Greatclub 6-8 feet long and weighing between 10-16 pounds).
THIS:
Is a Steel Cane that's battle-ready. They're between 3-4 feet long, and weigh about 5-6 pounds, more if you're taller. As you can see, it's almost exactly the same, the weight distribution is simply more balanced in a Greatclub.
Swords are lighter than blunt weapons, because they cut instead of smash.
Here http://www.nihonzashi.com/japanese_weapons_tetsubo.aspx
we have a Tetsubo, an ancient Japanese club that could weigh more than 10lbs.
And honestly the weapon in the upper picture looks a lot more effective (and heavy) as a weapon than the canes in lower picture. In addition a top heavy club gives more impact than an equally balanced one.
Swords are lighter than blunt weapons, because they cut instead of smash.
Here http://www.nihonzashi.com/japanese_weapons_tetsubo.aspx
we have a Tetsubo, an ancient Japanese club that could weigh more than 10lbs.
And honestly the weapon in the upper picture looks a lot more effective (and heavy) as a weapon than the canes in lower picture. In addition a top heavy club gives more impact than an equally balanced one.
You could weight a cane (or in this case a walking stick) so that it was more effective as a club, though. Leave the top half wooden and reinforce the bottom half with metal bands and such, and you've got something that looks and performs a lot like a (get this) Greatclub.
You could weight a cane (or in this case a walking stick) so that it was more effective as a club, though. Leave the top half wooden and reinforce the bottom half with metal bands and such, and you've got something that looks and performs a lot like a (get this) Greatclub.
If it looks like a greatclub, and works like a greatclub, guess what, it is a greatclub.
That just shows that "milking the system," as you say, was never my goal.
Hence the reason I think the DM's problem lies more in the realm of believability. I think he has a problem visualizing a venerable old priest walking around with a 10 lb. stick that he uses to whack people with as a last ditch effort. It may be beneficial to revisit him with this and see where the problem lies. That being said, some DMs just have certain preconceptions. It is up to you to determine whether adjusting your concept to fit the game is too much of a stretch or enough for you. if you have many games to choose from and walking away is no big deal for you, then do so. If, though, you are like many gamers and have a hard time finding even one game, then it may mean meeting the DM halfway.
You did say this was someone new. You do not, I presume, know him and he does not know you. Once you get to know each other, it may come to pass that he feels more comfortable with situations like this. Initially, though, he may want to err on the side of caution and deny something like this until he becomes more comfortable with you and your ideas.
If it looks like a greatclub, and works like a greatclub, guess what, it is a greatclub.
Which is a problem for who in this thread, exactly? Certainly not the OP.
If it looks like a greatclub, and works like a greatclub, guess what, it is a greatclub.
Which is a problem for who in this thread, exactly? Certainly not the OP.
I certainly hope that a greatclub looking greatclub working as a greatclub is a problem to none.
I certainly hope that a greatclub looking greatclub working as a greatclub is a problem to none.
So adding a hook or a nob onto the top of that club so that it might be used as a walking stick isn't a stretch at all, wouldn't you agree?
So adding a hook or a nob onto the top of that club so that it might be used as a walking stick isn't a stretch at all, wouldn't you agree?
Using I greatclub as a walking aid, I'd allowe.
Thinking that anyone with half a wit doesn't spot it as a greatclub I don't.
And it's not even a matter of weather I'd allowe it or not, but that weather a GM is being totally fair and reasonable while disallowing it.
Thinking that anyone with half a wit doesn't spot it as a greatclub I don't.
When was that even hinted at? The OP has said multiple times that he's fine with it being recognizably a weapon. He just wants something that fits more with his character concept than a reinforced tree branch.
When was that even hinted at? The OP has said multiple times that he's fine with it being recognizably a weapon. He just wants something that fits more with his character concept than a reinforced tree branch.
It was other people than the OP that contradicted me and some of my replies were for them. However
You see, I had listed "Walking Cane" as a melee weapon on my character and used the stats for the greatclub to represent it.
In any case, I'm surprised that most people don't see this as a good roleplaying opportunity. "You wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick, would you?"
all the DM has to do is explain it off as "they are particularly astute guards who know that such mundane things as sturdy metal canes can be used as weapons against their king just as readily as any mace," and I will be quite happy
Atleast some degree of it seeming like an ordinary cane was implied even by the OP.
And the OP claimed that the GM was limiting roleplaying and flavor. Stats have nothing to do with that. GM even offered cane stats to the OP according to him. Whats the problem? Stats don't enter in to roleplaying or flavor.
If a player wants to use a fine looking Greatclub as a walking aid, I'd say it'd be reasonable for the GM to allowe it. (as long as the player then later doesn't stat griping that the GM is unfair beacuse everyone percieve the character as armed)
If the player says 'I buy a walking cane that I can attack with', it is reasonable that the GM will set the stats.
Atleast some degree of it seeming like an ordinary cane was implied even by the OP.
There's a difference between playing up the RP aspects and caging a DM for unfair advantages. RD was more than forthcoming with the fact that he was fine with it being treated like a greatclub in every instance where that was potentially important, all the way to outright stating (as the above quotes show) that guards should recognize it as a weaponized walking stick and take it away from him.
And the OP claimed that the GM was limiting roleplaying and flavor. Stats have nothing to do with that. GM even offered cane stats to the OP according to him. Whats the problem? Stats don't enter in to roleplaying or flavor.
Exactly. Stats don't enter in to flavor. So why should he be penalized mechanically over a character whose concept includes better weapons (a greatclub, seriously?) carried overtly when all he wants is a respectable way to make OAs with his character that has no other impact on the game? It's not like he was pushing for a concealable mordenkrag or something; the character is openly carrying a weaponized cane that acts as a greatclub in combat.
If a player wants to use a fine looking Greatclub as a walking aid, I'd say it'd be reasonable for the GM to allowe it. (as long as the player then later doesn't stat griping that the GM is unfair beacuse everyone percieve the character as armed)
If the player says 'I buy a walking cane that I can attack with', it is reasonable that the GM will set the stats.
And I contend that any DM worth playing under is going to look at the concept, chuckle to himself and say "sure, but everyone's going to recognize it as a weapon." Getting the third degree about it isn't something that should happen at a reasonable table.
With that all being said, your idea is an excellent one, it is very creative and a nice twist on the character - however, I think that (in my opinion as DM), it is a little too out there to be allowed in the party as an item. You basically are giving your character a method to take a pretty kick ass weapon into areas that weapons might not be allowed, and although it is very great thinking on your part, it would be an unfair advantage in the game. I'd possibly allow it to be used as some sort of a staff weapon, or normal club (like a police baton type of weapon), but not as a great club.
If you insisted on taking it, as DM I wouldn't put up a big fuss and argue, I'd allow it, but I'd also allow the NPC's to use common sense and think to themselves "man, that is one big ass cane he is hobbling around on"...
As far as your DM's attitude, I've found over the years that some players just don't fit into games, and in your situation, some DM's don't fit into the player's style of play. I'd give him a chance though, and at least sit through a session or two, but if he has a stinky attitude, then just got somewhere else to game and find a new group - gaming is supposed to be a fun experience, and if you aren't finding any fun in it, then you need to look elsewhere.
D.
Looking at it, theres no way wood can weigh 10 lbs!
Then I noticed, its over 4 feet long. Way too long to be a cane.
The cane would have to be made out of metal to remain thin and about the size of a baseball bat. (Wood baseball bats dont even weigh 3 lbs!)
Lazzo: And honestly the [thin metal] weapon in the upper picture looks a lot more effective (and heavy) as a weapon than the [metal battle] canes in lower picture. In addition a top heavy club gives more impact than an equally balanced one.
Agreed. Also, the metal pain-cane, per RAW, has to be top-heavy to classify as greatclub, as part of the "mace" group. RavingDork mentioned his character's cane is solid metal with a top-heavy knob being used as a handle. Sounds fine.
There's a difference between playing up the RP aspects and caging a DM for unfair advantages. RD was more than forthcoming with the fact that he was fine with it being treated like a greatclub in every instance where that was potentially important, all the way to outright stating (as the above quotes show) that guards should recognize it as a weaponized walking stick and take it away from him.
He said 'particularily astute guards'. I say anyone.
Exactly. Stats don't enter in to flavor. So why should he be penalized mechanically over a character whose concept includes better weapons (a greatclub, seriously?) carried overtly when all he wants is a respectable way to make OAs with his character that has no other impact on the game? It's not like he was pushing for a concealable mordenkrag or something; the character is openly carrying a weaponized cane that acts as a greatclub in combat.
No. Now you're wanting better stats. If you just want it for flavor, you take what the GM gives.
If you openly wan't to use a greatclub as a walking aid, that should be ok, like I've said repeatedly
And I contend that any DM worth playing under is going to look at the concept, chuckle to himself and say "sure, but everyone's going to recognize it as a weapon." Getting the third degree about it isn't something that should happen at a reasonable table.
Ofcourse not. And it's not the issue anymore. The GM behaviour part was handled long ago on the thread.
You cant use that wooden war club as a cane.
Looking at it, theres no way wood can weigh 10 lbs!
Then I noticed, its over 4 feet long. Way too long to be a cane.
The cane would have to be made out of metal to remain thin and about the size of a baseball bat. (Wood baseball bats dont even weigh 3 lbs!)
A wooden shaft with metal ring reinforcements and some rivetting on one end does a great job of being both a cane and (if it's too heavy to wield one handed) a greatclub.
Problem solved.
Swords are lighter than blunt weapons, because they cut instead of smash.
Here http://www.nihonzashi.com/japanese_weapons_tetsubo.aspx
we have a Tetsubo, an ancient Japanese club that could weigh more than 10lbs.
Side note - tetsubo (not sure how you would make it plural) rock. I've always pictured ogres and giants with greatclubs using massive tetsubo.
He said 'particularily astute guards'. I say anyone.
And he said that if the DM ever wanted to take it away from him when the other players were losing their weapons, he'd be fine with that. That certainly doesn't imply that there's some sort of consipracy to let the old man keep his inferior weapon.
No. Now you're wanting better stats. If you just want it for flavor, you take what the GM gives.
No. You're wanting to avoid being penalized any more than you already are (by choosing a greatclub over one of the actually useful two-handed weapons) for your concept. If he was doing this for a mechanical advantage, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The DM should let it swing, with the caveat that it's obviously a weapon in all instances where that matters, which the OP has said he's ok with.
If you openly wan't to use a greatclub as a walking aid, that should be ok, like I've said repeatedly
Ofcourse not. And it's not the issue anymore. The GM behaviour part was handled long ago on the thread.
Then why are we still talking about it? The DM behavior was the only point to this thread. There's nothing wrong with the request, just the way the DM handled it.
Side note - tetsubo (not sure how you would make it plural) rock. I've always pictured ogres and giants with greatclubs using massive tetsubo.
tetsubo are the traditional oni club, so it's natural for you to think so
Tell your DM that you'll use a greatclub, but you have to make a Bluff check every X period of time to add some bells and whistles to the greatclub so that it LOOKS like a cane. If someone beats that check, they know about the club, if they don't, well, they won't know what hit them.
Why on earth should reflavoring, appropriate to the GM's campaign world, have to cost anything...ever?
That just does not make any sense to me at all.
In case you don´t want the greatclub to have any benefit from being shaped like cane, meaning that it´s obviously a dangerous weapon to all onlookers, then it should be okay without any big drawbacks. It hade been another matter if you wanted the cane to look like a harmless walking cane.
A heavy piece of wood is cheaper than a 4 feet metal headcrusher though, the typical greatclub costs 1 gp, but your classy metal cane should probably at least cost the same as a mace, 6gp, so the cost of having your cane made is 5gp more than just buying a greatclub. That is one way of paying the price for a custom item.
Batshido, but I doubt "metal ring" reinforcements are heavy enough to approximate "10 lbs" (including accessories). The entire shaft of the club would need to be metal, to maintain a thinness thats feasible for a walking aid. The metal greatclub that Crimson Lancer showed is perfect.
No reasonable weapon weighs 10 pounds. The modern equivalent to a greatclub (a big smashing weapon that has to be used in both hands to be effective) is a baseball bat. They sure don't weigh 10 pounds.
Not that any of that matters. This isn't a discussion about physics. This is a discussion about whether or not a DM should allow a player minor flavor adjustments to equipment to fit their character concept. And the answer is; Yes, they should.
In case you don´t want the greatclub to have any benefit from being shaped like cane, meaning that it´s obviously a dangerous weapon to all onlookers, then it should be okay without any big drawbacks. It hade been another matter if you wanted the cane to look like a harmless walking cane.
A heavy piece of wood is cheaper than a 4 feet metal headcrusher though, the typical greatclub costs 1 gp, but your classy metal cane should probably at least cost the same as a mace, 6gp, so the cost of having your cane made is 5gp more than just buying a greatclub. That is one way of paying the price for a custom item.
Why are we back to paying in-character costs for flavor? There shouldn't be tariffs on fun or roleplaying. If he wants it to act like a mace, it should cost the same as a mace. He wants it to act like a greatclub, so it should cost the same as a greatclub, regardless of the slightly altered form.
Because, eventually, he can sneak that walking cane, now a +6 greatclub o' doom, give it to the fighter, and watch the fireworks, or hand it over for an escape out of jail. Eventually, even a cane can provide huge mechanical advantage.
Except for the part where he's fine with it being taken away as a weapon. Or recognized as a weapon whenever appropriate.
Except for the fact that as this situation was laid out, your above example would never come to pass.
Except for all that, sure. It's a problem.
Since when do prisoners get to keep anything remotely weapon-like anyway? I wouldn't expect an actual walking stick to stay in that instance, much less one that was pimped out with a bunch of metal strips and rivets.
Batshido: No reasonable weapon weighs 10 pounds.
I agree. In fact, most weapons in the PH table seem too heavy.
RavingDork explained the extra-heaviness is to include the equipment to carry the weapon. That sounds right, as its the kind of equipment players would forget to add to encumberance.
The solid metal greatclub that CrL showed weighed about 7 lbs (approximately the weight of two longswords). That sounds about right. Even if its necessary to increase it to 8 or even 10 lbs, the diameter wouldnt be much thicker. Solid metal is definitely the solution.
It would be a smooth metal shaft, no rings or rivets or anything.
It would be near the same price as a longsword. (Not the 1 gp of a wooden club!)
And he said that if the DM ever wanted to take it away from him when the other players were losing their weapons, he'd be fine with that. That certainly doesn't imply that there's some sort of consipracy to let the old man keep his inferior weapon.
No. You're wanting to avoid being penalized any more than you already are (by choosing a greatclub over one of the actually useful two-handed weapons) for your concept. If he was doing this for a mechanical advantage, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The DM should let it swing, with the caveat that it's obviously a weapon in all instances where that matters, which the OP has said he's ok with.
If you openly wan't to use a greatclub as a walking aid, that should be ok, like I've said repeatedly
Then why are we still talking about it? The DM behavior was the only point to this thread. There's nothing wrong with the request, just the way the DM handled it.
Ok so now you just want to look like you 'won an argument'.
So basically you by now agree with everything I've said, just want to phrase it differently.
Ok so now you just want to look like you 'won an argument'.
So basically you by now agree with everything I've said, just want to phrase it differently.
No, I was responding to you. If you agree with what I said, we're obviously framing it very differently.
I don't care one way or another about "winning" internet arguments; that's like catching smoke. If I see something I disagree with, though, I'm going to state that disagreement. The way you phrased your statements certainly didn't lead me to believe we were on the same page, hence me disagreeing with them.
I also recommend a Bluff check to pass the pain-cane off as a normal walking aid. Heh, Id probably add the Str penalty, because its more difficult for a weak character to make it seem as if its lightweight.
I wouldn't allow that at all. That's explicitly gaining an advantage from this, when it was pitched as a reflavoring. That's where I draw the line.
No reasonable weapon weighs 10 pounds. The modern equivalent to a greatclub (a big smashing weapon that has to be used in both hands to be effective) is a baseball bat. They sure don't weigh 10 pounds.
Just a side note - here's a site selling a functional tetsubo that weighs 10 lbs.
But yeh, weapons that heavy are ridiculously rare.
No, I would never allow a walking stick as a great club. I would allow it as a club or quarterstaff at the player's discression, but that does effect the way the weapon will look (cane or walking stick). The weight issue is the big one for me: I think 10 pounds is way too much for a walking stick, even a steel one. 10 pounds is easy to lift in one hand, but more than you can comfortably manipulate in one hand and use as an aid to balancing.
Yes, the player should be allowed to flavor his character, but the DM has to make the world make sense, and if what you're suggesting doesn't fit the physics of the DM's world, you need to work together on a solution. I don't see this whole, "the DM should let a player do whatever the player wants with his character," thing. You can say that's the right way to play D&D, but then you can say cattle prods as critical hit "simulators" are the "right way" to play D&D too. It's complete opinion.
The DM has a lot to worry about in terms of making the world work together. the player needs to understand that. The DM is putitng alot more work into the game than any of the players both at the table and away from it.
And having said all that, yes. i think the DM delivered this message poorly and may be a dick you don't want to play with anyway. But on the other hand, if you suggest something the DM thinks is ridiculous and he tells you why he thinks it sounds ridiculous, and then you keep pushing on it, I can see how the DM would jump to the conclusion that you're just tyring to take advantage of him too. The DM is the final arbiter on whether or not a great club can look like a walking stick. It's his call. If you don't like the way he calls it, then you're better off in another game. But with all that goes into DMing, I don't think this guy was over the line in any way other than being rude, and probably a little frazzled.
Batshido: I wouldn't allow [a Bluff check] at all. That's explicitly gaining an advantage from this, when it was pitched as a reflavoring. That's where I draw the line.
A Bluff check doesnt come for free. The character pays for it by investing in the Bluff skill. For a Cleric, that also means spending a feat to train in it. For a Rogue, this is the kind of thing a Rogue should be doing anyway.
More important is the opposite. UNLESS the character is actively manipulating the cane to make it seem lightweight, its OBVIOUSLY a dangerous weapon.
The skill check makes it easy for the DM to clarify ambiguity.
Id assign a base DC of 20, because to me it seems it would take "expertise" to pass it off.
A Bluff check doesnt come for free. The character pays for it by investing in the Bluff skill. For a Cleric, that also means spending a feat to train in it. For a Rogue, this is the kind of thing a Rogue should be doing anyway.
More important is the opposite. UNLESS the character is actively manipulating the cane to make it seem lightweight, its OBVIOUSLY a dangerous weapon.
The skill check makes it easy for the DM to clarify ambiguity.
Id assign a base DC of 20, because to me it seems it would take "expertise" to pass it off.
I still wouldn't allow it at all. Or, if I did, I'd require an extra feat or utility power to pull it off. There needs to be some investment by the character to pull off such a ruse, outside of investing in a generally useful skill. It still smacks of gaining an advantage for nothing to me without additional feats being required.
I'm all about giving players the ability to redefine their characters within the mechanical structure of the game (I regularly encourage my players to come up with personalized descriptions for spell effects or describe their weapons and armor in non-standard ways), but I'm not going to let them try and game that for mechanical advantages.
There needs to be some investment by the character to pull off such a ruse.
This is a normal stunt. People do this kind of stuff all the time. It requires some skill, but is easier than putting on a disguise, which requires Bluff only. No other investment, except perhaps special equipment in the form of special cosmetics. The cane itself is special equipment, and costs more than a wooden club.
If he wants it for aesthetics, fine.
But, Bashido, I think you're wrong to say this thread is about whether it should be allowed. This thread, at its heart, is about how this player and this DM interacted.
Sure, RavingDork has made it clear -- after several days of discussion -- that he'd be willing to let his greatclub be confiscated when other players lose access to their weapons. But did he make that clear to the DM? Did he make it clear that his walking stick would look like:
to be wielded like
and not
to be wielded like
From my reading of the OP, no. The player seemed to present his idea in a way that gave the impression -- to many people (myself included) -- that he was trying to get a greatclub that looked like an innocuous cane. Only after this board pushed him did he (reluctantly, from what I can see) concede that his weapon should not gain the benefit of appearing harmless.
I think people are being very unfair to this DM, who isn't here to give his side of the story. The player should go back and explain clearly, that he wants no benefit. That his walking stick will clearly have the capacity to be used as a two-handed cudgel to any casual observer, but aesthetically is designed primarily to be used for support while walking rather than fighting. That sounds reasonable to me.
Another note. Having a Str of 8 doesn't make you appear fragile. Nor does it make you appear to require the use of a walking stick. Con would also be important, and I'm going to assume your Con is above average. In order to appear frail, the character is going to want to walk about in disguise, so he better get some Bluff training either way. Then he can talk with the DM about finding a way to disguise his greatclub as an innocuous cane. Perhaps a variation on the Hallucinatory Item ritual might be found.
Wood is moot.
This is a normal stunt. People do this kind of stuff all the time. It requires some skill, but is easier than putting on a disguise, which requires Bluff only. No other investment, except perhaps special equipment in the form of special cosmetics. The cane itself is special equipment, and costs more than a wooden club.
Haldrik, your argument is exhibit A for why a DM is within his right to not allow the cane to be a great club in disguise. Because once it's there, there's all sorts of other questions that can come up, like a cane can be snuck into a non-combat formal occassion easily, but a great club could not. And even when the DM says "no, that doesn't work," the player may argue until it does, which disrupts the game and is a big headache for the DM, who's now the bad guy. I'd rather be the bad guy up front and nip it in the bud during character creation that have it repeatedly come up in the game.
But maybe I'm just a cynic. In general I let the PCs do a lot, but I keep a tight reign on things like physics, setting, the world's cultures, etc. because I have to arbitrate them.
There's all sorts of other questions that can come up.
Thats why DMs exist in the first place.
I think DMs should be permissive, but I really don't see any reason, other than mechanical, that the OP would only accept only his own way and not the smart compromise offered(at least you say in the OP that the DM offered you quarterstaff stats but you didn't want that).
If this was all about flavor, whether the thing used the greatclub stats vs mace/quarterstaff stats would be irrelevant.
And, as has been said, the OP indicated that only particularly observant creatures/npcs would notice it was a weapon. Everyone/everything should realize its a weapon without there being any chance of misunderstanding. That's all secondary, though. My main issue is that the OP seems to be complaining about something on a flavor basis but its not really a flavor issue. If it was strictly flavor, if the DM has said that it had the same stats as a dagger you would have been ok with it.
-AS-
Thats why DMs exist in the first place.
Only in part. And preparing for those moments by having the foresight to disallow something that's going to cause problems later is why i have no problem with the core of this DM's call. Although, as has been mentioned, he probably didn't handle it wisely after making that call.
But how much fun do you think it is for a DM who showed up to run the dungeon has to spend all night playing daddy to a bunch of players looking to stretch the rules to their advantage? Or worse, trying to foresee when a decision you make is going to lead to that later? Sometimes it's OK for the DM to just say no, this doesn't work in this game world. It's not ideal, but there's a lot to balance and it takes some leverage.
This is a normal stunt. People do this kind of stuff all the time. It requires some skill, but is easier than putting on a disguise, which requires Bluff only. No other investment, except perhaps special equipment in the form of special cosmetics. The cane itself is special equipment, and costs more than a wooden club.
If the player wants to try that, it's got to cost something extra. I'm wary of attaching character capability to purchased equipment anymore than it already is, so I'd probably make it a feat or a power attached to that specific type of setup.
Until "Innocuous" is a weapon quality like Versatile or Brutal, the check for making your greatclub walking stick look like a harmless walking stick is the same Bluff check one one have to roll to hide a greatsword under your cloak.
I'd agree with this, but I'm hesitant to allow something that was allowed for flavor reasons to be hidden in plain sight like that. If he wants to conceal it or take pains to allow it to pass inspection I'd figure something out for that. If it's just supposed to be a reflavored greatclub with no other investment it's not going to work.
But, Bashido, I think you're wrong to say this thread is about whether it should be allowed. This thread, at its heart, is about how this player and this DM interacted.
Sure, RavingDork has made it clear -- after several days of discussion -- that he'd be willing to let his greatclub be confiscated when other players lose access to their weapons. But did he make that clear to the DM? Did he make it clear that his walking stick would look like:
From my reading of the OP, no. The player seemed to present his idea in a way that gave the impression -- to many people (myself included) -- that he was trying to get a greatclub that looked like an innocuous cane. Only after this board pushed him did he (reluctantly, from what I can see) concede that his weapon should not gain the benefit of appearing harmless.
I think people are being very unfair to this DM, who isn't here to give his side of the story. The player should go back and explain clearly, that he wants no benefit. That his walking stick will clearly have the capacity to be used as a two-handed cudgel to any casual observer, but aesthetically is designed primarily to be used for support while walking rather than fighting. That sounds reasonable to me.
It does depend on how it's pitched, but I have a hard time viewing a flat refusal to allow a player to try something that works 100% within the mechanical system presented as being reasonable. It's not something I'd do as a DM and it's not something any DM I'd personally play under would do. If there has been a misrepresentation of that reaction in this thread, then I'd revisit my previous statements, but as presented those are my feelings about the situation.
Only in part. And preparing for those moments by having the foresight to disallow something that's going to cause problems later is why i have no problem with the core of this DM's call. Although, as has been mentioned, he probably didn't handle it wisely after making that call.
But how much fun do you think it is for a DM who showed up to run the dungeon has to spend all night playing daddy to a bunch of players looking to stretch the rules to their advantage? Or worse, trying to foresee when a decision you make is going to lead to that later? Sometimes it's OK for the DM to just say no, this doesn't work in this game world. It's not ideal, but there's a lot to balance and it takes some leverage.
I have a policy; Reflavoring can't result in a mechanical advantage. If I even think that's going to be the case I fix the problem that came up to point to it and we move on.
My players know this is the case. I'll let them play exactly the characters they want, with the flavor that they want and all that. but the instant they try to use this proclivity to game me, the hammer comes down. Hard.
Clubs can be made out of solid metal.
Wood is moot.
It does't matter. The steel tetsubo given as an example of a metal greatclub:
is 33 lbs. in weight and six feet long. stats
Nobody sees someone walking around with a steel quarterstaff and thinks (hmm... innocuous walking stick).
It does depend on how it's pitched, but I have a hard time viewing a flat refusal to allow a player to try something that works 100% within the mechanical system presented as being reasonable.
Except, as you said, it wasn't clear (from the OP) that it works 100% within the mechanical system presented, because it seemed he wanted a greatclub that had an additional mechanical benefit (innocuousness).
Now, maybe the OP failed to explain that he didn't want that benefit. Maybe he did want the benefit and has only recently realized that such a benefit is unwarranted. Maybe he did explain it and the DM is being a jerk.
I can't tell from this thread, though my inclination is that the I have presented the three scenarios in the order of most likely to least likely.
It's not like the Op is wanting to run around with a Maul as his cane or something.
The Dm was out of his skull for a couple of reasons.
1, he's trapped in the Old World Mentality of "Zomg it's not RAW"
2, He was being a douche. "MY world MY rules! "
3, He probably has no grasp on what you are really asking for.
Note, the pain-cane isnt an "optimized" weapon. It only deals 2d4, and requires both hands. Something that classified as a mace proper would be better, dealing 1d8 and versatile.
(Heh. Ninjaed by Micha.)
The pain-cane is solid metal, not quite 3 feet, and about 10 lbs. Its a reallife stat. It classifies as a greatclub.
Where is the "pain cane" found?
Thus, the "battle ready" steel cane that Crimson Lancer also showed would qualify as a "mace", being 6 lbs. [Edit: Doublechecked, the cane weighs 5-6 lbs, but could weigh more if for a person whos taller. Basically mace stats, as the handle makes it top-heavy.]
But a similar item that was thicker, more like the metal tetsubo in shape (not size) - somewhat like a thin baseball bat - would qualify as a "great club".
Hmmm ... the most plausible weapon is the one at about 6 lbs, qualifying as a "mace". This is also the optimal weapon dealing 1d8 and versatile.
Hmmm ... the most plausible weapon is the one at about 7 lbs, qualifying as a "mace". This the optimal weapon dealing 1d8 but versatile.
I think part of the point of picking greatclub was to ensure that his old man had to fight with the cane two-handed. Mechanical reinforcement of the concept of a feeble old guy swinging his cane around and huffing and puffing because of it.
Raving Dork, get a dynamic weapon from the Adventurer's Vault. When you use it as a walking stick, it's a mace/club/quarterstaff. When you swing it at someone's head, you dynamic it into a greatclub.
Problem solved.
Batshido: Mechanical reinforcement of the concept of a feeble old guy swinging his cane around and huffing and puffing because of it.
Yeah, the point is flavor.
If the pain-cane is in the form of a 6 lb mace, then it also reinforces this flavor. The mechanical advantage of the mace as a versatile weapon makes it worthwhile to use two-handed.
TheMocaw: Problem solved.
There isnt any problem.
The battle-ready solid-steel 6 lb cane is a "mace" that exists in reallife. The weapon is a normal option that any character can choose if they want to.
Several DMs simply got caught off-guard, and because DMs care about longterm gaming balance, they sometimes overreact to err on the side of caution. However, in this case, the weapon exists per RAW, and DMs are simply going against RAW if they disallow it.
The OP doesnt care if the pain-cane can be "hidden in plain sight". But other posters are exploring this. This, and situations like it, is what the Bluff skill is for.
That said if I were your Dm, I would allow it. So you have a heavy club you use as a walking stick. If He is PC, then he is a heroic character, and everyone is going to be leary of that big iron shod walking stick ofthat PC.
If I were the OP, and my DM said a walking stick can't be a great club, but must be a staff, then I would accept his call. He is the Dm, He runs the game, and what he asks is a small adjustment. So my PC carries a staff instead of a Great club as a walking stick. I still got a big walking stick to club those who need a good old fassion beating.
This means a normal flimsy wooden cane classifies as a "club".
Yes, those "flimsy" pieces of wood made to support the weight of people who may way as much as 300 pounds. They're completely flimsy, like kindling really. How much structural integrity does it take to support the weight of a 70th percentiale full-grown adult human? Next time you're around your grandparents, whack yourself over the head with one. It'll snap in twain with no damage done. Really...
If the cane is metal with some kind of topper or the appropriate weight, I could see it being statted as a mace.
And where is the pain cane in the RAW again? I haven't come across it.
I have a policy; Reflavoring can't result in a mechanical advantage. If I even think that's going to be the case I fix the problem that came up to point to it and we move on.
My players know this is the case. I'll let them play exactly the characters they want, with the flavor that they want and all that. but the instant they try to use this proclivity to game me, the hammer comes down. Hard.
Batshido your my hero. That is what I would exspect from a good Dm. That is how I would Dm it.
Batshido your my hero. That is what I would exspect from a good Dm. That is how I would Dm it.
Batshido and I share the same policy more or less with Dming in this matter.
Apparently good dms are a rare commodity.
Hopefully my Dm's Helpful Guide Articles will address some of that.
McT: Yes, those "flimsy" pieces of wood made to support the weight of people who may way as much as 300 pounds.
Well, I have a wooden cane right here, and it weighs little. This particular one is shaped like a bat, with the handle being the thicker part, and the base being narrower. Its ornately carved dark wood. (I got it from my grandmothers boyfriend.)
And where is the pain cane in the RAW again? I haven't come across it.
Its a "mace".A top-heavy blunt instrument that weighs 6 lbs. (It doesnt have a hefty head, so it isnt a "hammer".) Heres the stats:
Players Handbook:
Mace [Group]: Maces are blunt weapons that have a heavier head than handle. .. They’re useful for delivering crushing blows.
Mace: +2 [proficiency bonus], 1d8 [damage], 5 gp [cost], 6 lb. [weight], Mace [group], Versatile
Well, I have a wooden cane right here, and it weighs little. This particular one is shaped like a bat, with the handle being the thicker part, and the base being narrower. Its ornately carved dark wood.
A top-heavy blunt instrument that weighs 6 lbs. Heres the stats:
You got your attributions wrong. Bats is the one getting praised like some Yogi in that "oh, we're all the good DMs" group cuddle up there.
;)
Batshido your my hero. That is what I would exspect from a good Dm. That is how I would Dm it.
Thanks. I certainly try. ;)
As far as I'm concerned, the level of personal investment in a character that leads to requests like this is most definitely a good thing and something I love seeing from players. I just have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to people who try to abuse the freedom I would like to give them.
Bats: Yes, those "flimsy" pieces of wood made to support the weight of people who may way as much as 300 pounds.
Not me. ;)
So yeah... you guys get to suffer without Dm's advice till Thursday muwahahaha j/k
Bats: Reflavoring can't result in a mechanical advantage.
Exactly. All the OP wants is strictly reflavoring.
However, it also raises disguise as a separate issue.
A disguisable weapon (like a swordcane, boot-blade, or "innocuous" pain-cane) is fine, but would cost extra and require a Bluff check.
For something like a boot-blade, it would probably require a Bluff check to make. For something like a "hide in plain sight" pain-cane, it would probably require a bluff check to use.
"James Bond" equipment is normal for Rogue-ish intreague. DMs dont need to fly into a panic when adjudicating it.
Not me.
Editing typo fixed.
"There's no age chart, you can't have it" exact words.
This is when you say "OK, the character is a young man. He's been a young man for 60 years."
Sheesh. The lack of age charts is what makes the continual downward revision of elf life expectancies bearable - you can just ignore what the book says and give your fey any maximum age you like (or none at all if that's your preference).
Editing typo fixed.
Bats: And where is the pain cane in the RAW again? I haven't come across it.
Also not me. ;)
Bats: Also not me.
Ack! Now fixed.
This is when you say "OK, the character is a young man. He's been a young man for 60 years."
Sheesh. The lack of age charts is what makes the continual downward revision of elf life expectancies bearable - you can just ignore what the book says and give your fey any maximum age you like (or none at all if that's your preference).
I like elves actually kicking the bucket from old age in a "reasonable" time span. It increases their viability as a species in my eyes. (especially since elven population has been on a steady rise to correllate with the declining age limits)
Yeah, I told the guy that more or less and his dm gave me this borderlined psychotic glassy eyed stare. "Don't encourage him" was the response I got. I left it alone after that.
The DM is surely thinking of a cane as one of the things that we see older people or people with foot/knee injuries use. Something similar to this:
Ack! Now fixed.
LOL! Now it's reversed. Those were both me. :D
The pain-cane is solid metal, about 3 feet, about 10 lbs, and relatively thin. Its a reallife stat. It classifies as a greatclub.
I wish you'd stop using terms you've made up as if the rest of us should understand what you mean. At a minimum, pick a definition and stick with it.
A greatclub is listed as follows:
The steel cane in question weighs 6 lbs. Not 10 lbs.
So it cant be a greatclub.
It is a 6-lb mace.
The consolidation makes it easy to handle stuff like this.
Mudbunny, LOL! great choice for your what-the-DM-sees illustration.
I can almost guarantee that the DM is thinking:
"This guy wants me to believe that my grandpa's cane is equivalent to a greatclub. No way in hell am I going to allow that."
If the OP would explain to his DM the type of cane he (the OP) is envisioning, along with the various caveats that have come out in the thread (No problem with someone seeing immediately that it could be used as a weapon), I don't think that there would be any problems with it.
Atleast some degree of it seeming like an ordinary cane was implied even by the OP.
I guess I did, didn't I? I'm not sure why I typed that as it was always supposed to be a sturdy metal cane. *looks up the character sheet*
Yep. My initial post was incorrect. My sheet specifically says "metal cane" not walking staff.
Sorry for the confusion. :embarrass
If it is not a mechanical issue, why did the OP not just accept the DMs counter offer of using the quarterstaff's stats? If it is not a mechanical issue, what does it matter whether it does d8 damage or 2d4, or whether it is staff or mace group? If this is only for flavor, why does it have to be a greatclub?
Primarily, this is supposed to be a discussion about how best to get along with the DM and his apparent "tyranical" reaction (sorry, I couldn't think of a kinder word).
I think DMs should be permissive, but I really don't see any reason, other than mechanical, that the OP would only accept only his own way and not the smart compromise offered(at least you say in the OP that the DM offered you quarterstaff stats but you didn't want that).
If this was all about flavor, whether the thing used the greatclub stats vs mace/quarterstaff stats would be irrelevant.
As secondary topics, both flavor and mechanics apply. This IS a flavor issue, but as I have said before: Why I should I be forced to have the inferior club stats (arguably one of the worst weapons in the game) just because I described my weapon differently? A normal cleric character would NEVER take a club as a primary weapon, why should I have to?
And, as has been said, the OP indicated that only particularly observant creatures/npcs would notice it was a weapon. Everyone/everything should realize its a weapon without there being any chance of misunderstanding. That's all secondary, though. My main issue is that the OP seems to be complaining about something on a flavor basis but its not really a flavor issue. If it was strictly flavor, if the DM has said that it had the same stats as a dagger you would have been ok with it.
-AS-
I said "particularly astute" to make the situatioon make sense to myself and the the other players. If the DM simply said "They take all your weapons, including your metal cane" I would just as quickly have responded with "astute guards, aren't they?"
It's a situation that would rarely come up anyways, so being able to portray the guards as astute wouldn't effect the thousands of "unmentioned NPCs" that my character passes on the streets every day. It doens't affect anything. The wider would (WHEN IT MATTERS) still sees my cane as a potential weapon.
Using bluff to hide the weapon's true nature...
I actually agree with this and like the idea very much. It's certainly not without cost as Bluff is not a cleric class skill, it would take a feat at the very least, and possibly two feats (SKill Focus) to really be good at it since I am Wisdom-focused (and such a cost would be absolutley fair). I may broach this idea with my new DM.
I have a policy; Reflavoring can't result in a mechanical advantage.
Both as a player and DM I share the same policy. The thing is, I would allow someone to make a Bluff check to try and convince someone that their sword isn't a sword ("It's a fake, only for show.") so I see now reason to disallow someone from concealing the fact that their cane is a weapon in the exact same way ("You wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick, would you?")
Except, as you said, it wasn't clear (from the OP) that it works 100% within the mechanical system presented, because it seemed he wanted a greatclub that had an additional mechanical benefit (innocuousness).
Now, maybe the OP failed to explain that he didn't want that benefit. Maybe he did want the benefit and has only recently realized that such a benefit is unwarranted. Maybe he did explain it and the DM is being a jerk.
I can't tell from this thread, though my inclination is that the I have presented the three scenarios in the order of most likely to least likely.
It would be far more accurate to say that I hadn't even considered the concealment factor up until I started this thread and you all brought it up. Once brought to my attention, however, I quickly stated that "I don't care if the guards take it away" because I truly don't believe in gaining mechancial benefits due to flavor changes. If I wanted mechancial changes (such as playing my cleric as a necromancer and having necrotic powers instead of radiant ones), I would have explicitly asked the DM's permission up front. As it happened, I did not initially tell the DM that I was restyling my greatclub as a metal cane as I didn't think it would be a problem (flavor-only changes are common-place in my old group).
I think part of the point of picking greatclub was to ensure that his old man had to fight with the cane two-handed. Mechanical reinforcement of the concept of a feeble old guy swinging his cane around and huffing and puffing because of it.
That's a very true assertion. I just didn't see my old man wielding it one-handed.
I have a perfect solution.
Raving Dork, get a dynamic weapon from the Adventurer's Vault. When you use it as a walking stick, it's a mace/club/quarterstaff. When you swing it at someone's head, you dynamic it into a greatclub.
Problem solved.
It's defintiely a good idea, but I still feel I would be losing options for a flavor decision. Why should I be limited to a certain magical property just because I wanted to fight with a cane?
Heck now that I think of it, I know Dm that wouldn't let someone play an old man in fourth edition because there are no age charts anymore. "There's no age chart, you can't have it" exact words. I was left dumbfounded with that. It's so much the opposite of how I run things and call the shots with my games.
So yeah... you guys get to suffer without Dm's advice till Thursday muwahahaha j/k
Wuh!?
That's horrible! WHen I noticed there was no age chart in 4E, I called all my friends and I said, "Hey guys! 4th Edition no longer LIMITS your ability to play young and old people! Chris, you can now play your child barbarian! Sarah, you cna now play your venerable lady warlock! Think about it guys! The old system only did two things: 1) cripple could character concepts and 2) encourage min/maxing. NO MORE! NO MORE! Have at it with your ideas!"What "steel cane in question"? The OP doesn't seem to have specified the weight of his proposed cane.
10 pounds, like a normal greatclub. Were it any lighter, it would be a mechanical advantage and not just a flavor-change.
I love 4e.
The consolidation makes it easy to handle stuff like this.
Absoltuley! Taht's why I'm concerned about why y DM is making such a big deal out of it. Maybe the others are right, maybe we aren't on the same page about the appearance of the weapon.
Also, for those of you who are interested, here is a picture of my character when he was younger. That's more or less how I envision his cane too--relatively short, thick, solid metal (dense metal too, not the normal stuff) and somewhat decorative.
I'm basing my character off of a short-haired Rhal (form Wizard's First Rule) who isn't quite as die-hard evil.
In any case, I certainly hope this lengthy post helps to clear up a few questions--particularly those about my stance on the matters being discussed.
Also, that's a nice picture. I think your weapon would have to be about six inches longer to ensure it could be wielded with only two hands (as is required of greatclubs), but otherwise I wouldn't have a problem.
or is it because a walking stick/greatclub is effectively a concealed weapon in plain sight? (or if not entirely concealed than an "easy to underestimate" weapon in plain sight)
Personally, I would allow it, but the cane would cost extra, you would have to explain why it's such a deadly cane, and you would have to bluff to keep people from realizing it is in fact a deadly cane.
Also, for those of you who are interested, here is a picture of my character when he was younger. That's more or less how I envision his cane too--relatively short, thick, solid metal (dense metal too, not the normal stuff) and somewhat decorative.
I'm basing my character off of a short-haired Rhal (form Wizard's First Rule) who isn't quite as die-hard evil.
In any case, I certainly hope this lengthy post helps to clear up a few questions--particularly those about my stance on the matters being discussed.
Dude, that clears up everything: That's a picture of a wizard with a cane that could be used as a club or, given the heavy metalic properties you're mentioning, a mace. A great club is a two-handed weapon. That is no two-handed weapon. The way he's holding it, the size ... it's a club or a mace. One-handed with versatile sounds about right. (Although, granted, it's not a quarter staff as the DM originally ruled.)
Why fixate on this being a great club? what's wrong with it being a mace? Is it because you don't have the right mace proficiency and don't want the regular club stats on it? because if it is then you're not lobbying for flavor, you're lobbying to bend the rules in your favor so you can have a better weapon.
Dude, that clears up everything: That's a picture of a wizard with a cane that could be used as a club or, given the heavy metalic properties you're mentioning, a mace. A great club is a two-handed weapon. That is no two-handed weapon. The way he's holding it, the size ... it's a club or a mace. One-handed with versatile sounds about right. (Although, granted, it's not a quarter staff as the DM originally ruled.)
You know that the transition from the pic to the character isn't exact. The material if the rod has changed and so the properties can be changed as well.
Also it is implied in your reaction that you cannot hold a two-handed weapon in one hand. You can do that just fine, but it takes two hand to wield , read as attack with, such a weapon.
Yep. My initial post was incorrect. My sheet specifically says "metal cane" not walking staff
But did you explain to your DM that this thing was waist height and not head height. Based on his response, I would dare say somehow that message was not communicated well. I think that is the first thing you need to clarify with your DM as it is likely the confusing issue. He may not have a problem once he realize what you are talking about.
As for the cane having greatclub stats, I would be ok with that with two caveots. The first being the need for a bluff check if you want to convince someone it is just a normal walking cane. The second being that this would be custom made masterwork item and as such would cost more to make. Additionally, I would allow it to be either club, greatclub, or mace but that would have to be defined when it was created becuase it would alter the design of the area to be gripped and possibly how the item's weight is balanced.
Were you cursed by another player or something? You always seem to have bad DM's, such as the newbie who mistook the KotS devil hand for an enemy o' Doom, or this one, who seems very authoritative.
A little question for Raving:
Were you cursed by another player or something? You always seem to have bad DM's, such as the newbie who mistook the KotS devil hand for an enemy o' Doom, or this one, who seems very authoritative.
Must have been. My new DM isn't returning any of my calls.
(I honestly don't believe I have any more or less problems with DMs then most normal roleplayers, I just like talking about them on the internet more than normal roleplayers.)
You know that the transition from the pic to the character isn't exact. The material if the rod has changed and so the properties can be changed as well.
Also it is implied in your reaction that you cannot hold a two-handed weapon in one hand. You can do that just fine, but it takes two hand to wield , read as attack with, such a weapon.
The size looks comparable and a slight modification would allow you to use it as a cane.
The great club is a type of mace. Also a real weapon that appears to function both ways has been found.
I feel like what the player is describing and showing in the picture, is not a 2-handed weapon. It'd be a versatile 1-handed weapon, i.e. a mace. If this is a proficiency issue maybe the DM lets him pick up mace prof.
But the player insists on it being the one weapon he wants it to be. The DM's not the one being inflexible here, the player's unhappy unless he gets the exact ruling he's looking for. But it's not the player's call. The longer this goes on, the more I feel like this whole "tyrannical" DM bit is bull. It's the player's character, but it's the DM's world. The DM gets ot make the call on what is equates to what.
To me, the cane in the picture looks more like a 6-lb mace, but something like it can easily be a 10-lb greatclub. The Cleric is proficient with both of these simple weapons.
The first impression seems to be the correct one: this DM seems unable to "say yes" to players. (Possibly is even abusive.) Leave.
Humans dont have a right to abuse power.
Dont give power to those who abuse it.
The player is reasonable, and in this case correct per RAW.
Back that up. Where in RAW does it say a cane is a great club? Not in a 6-step series of judgment calls that this equals that and is therefore a great club. Because every one of those decisions is an opinion, and a DM sticking with his own opinion is fine by me, that's his job. You're claiming RAW, show me RAW.
Add six inches to it and I'd agree that it could be a greatclub. As depicted in the picture? No.
I agree with McThorin. Haldrik is also ignoring the requirement that a greatclub must be wielded with two-hands as a weapon. The rod in that picture barely reaches the man's thigh. As such it could be wielded quite well as a one-handed weapon.
Add six inches to it and I'd agree that it could be a greatclub. As depicted in the picture? No.
Thank you.
I'm not saying you couldn't make a reasonable argument in favor of it, but it's not RAW. It's not iron-clad. You can make an equal or better argument against (obviously, I think the argument against is better because I'm backing it). The player wanted it interpreted one way and the DM didn't agree. Again I ask, why can't the player take one of the other options? Why's it HAVE to be a great club?
If you want to make the whole world your way, DM the game yourself. If you're asking someone else to run it, have some respect for that person's right to make a judgment call on how the world works.
Wrecan: Haldrik is also ignoring the requirement that a greatclub must be wielded with two-hands as a weapon.
As said,
Haldrik: To me, the cane in the picture looks more like a 6-lb mace.
Wrecan, you got it wrong again!
Third time in a row.
Whats your problem?
Wrecan, you got it wrong again!
Third time in a row.
Whats your problem?
My problem is your inconsistent posting habits.
The player is reasonable, and in this case correct per RAW.
To me, the cane in the picture looks more like a 6-lb mace, but something like it can easily be a 10-lb greatclub.
But the poster didn't say he wanted "something like it". He said he wants the club in the picture (but made of metal). He says it expressly in his last post on this thread:
Also, for those of you who are interested, here is a picture of my character when he was younger. That's more or less how I envision his cane too--relatively short, thick, solid metal (dense metal too, not the normal stuff) and somewhat decorative.
He wants the rod to be short. He specifically states that as one of the qualities of the cane to be envisioned. Something that short is not exclusively a two-handed weapon.
And yet you continue to insist the player is right per RAW and the DM is wrong. You appear to be doing this by imagining that RavingDork didn't actually write the words that contradict RAW.
So please explain how the player is right here under RAW. And also explain how the DM is wrong under RAW, since you asserted both things.
I've been consistent in my position: add six inches to the pictured rod and you'd have a two-handed weapon.
You've been inconsistent. You claim the weapon in the picture looks like a mace, and that if changed a bit (presumably by lengthening it as I suggested) it would be consistent with RAW. Then you make the unjustified assumption that the OP wants that change too, even though his statements (quoted above) make it clear that he doesn't want to lengthen the rod.
A VCL must avoid abusing any power.
1) I'm not a VCL.
2) Pointing out that you're wrong is not an abuse of anybody's power.
3) The appropriate remedy if you think a VCL is abusing his power is not to whine about it in the thread, but to post a complaint in the appropriate thread in the [forum=725]Volunteer Community Lead Program Open Discussion[/forum] forum. (However, because of points one and two, I would not recommend you do that here.)
2. I said, "something like it can easily be a 10-lb greatclub".
3. You yourself admitted, "Add six inches to it and I'd agree that it could be a greatclub." So you agree with me, "something like it can easily be a greatclub".
4. You dont have to make it longer, you can also make it thicker. Increasing a diameter a little, increases the mass a lot.
4. You dont have to make it longer, you can also make it thicker. Increasing a diameter a little, increases the mass a lot.
But it doesn't render it any less of a one-handed weapon.
1) The head must outweigh the handle. So, assuming uniform construction, the handle will be narrower than the head. This is consistent with most mace-like weapons (including the greatclub). If we assume non-uniform construction, btw, the problem is magnified, so this assumption actually benefits your argument -- it's just insufficient to get you where you need the weapon to be.
2) It must be able to be wielded as a weapon. This means the diameter cannot exceed that which allows one to hold the weapon in one's hands. (Basically,a diameter of no more than half a hand length from base to finger tip.
For non-exotic materials (by "exotic" I mean materials that didn't exist in our world prior to 1950), what makes a club-like weapon one handed vs. two-handed is going to be its length. Even steel is not sufficiently dense that a rod that only goes up to your thigh becomes unwieldy except with two hands. You can make it so thick that it's no good with a weapon even with two hands, or you can wield it with one. (That's because a two-handed weapon's handle has the same diameter limitation as a one-handed weapon.)
So, no, increasing the diameter of the weapon (without turning the head into a hammer*) isn't going to make it a two-handed weapon. You have to increase the length because the force needed to swing the head when holding it from the opposite end increases geometrically (or maybe exponentially -- I don't recall) as the length increases.
Unless you can show me a weapon under three feet long that is not a hammer and must be wielded with two hands by a person of average strength who is proficient in such a weapon.
*A Hammer is any non-bladed weapon whose head's width (perpendicular to the haft) 1) is greater than the head's length (parallel to the haft) and is 2) at least five times the median diameter of the haft.
Rule number one. Its ok if we disagree. Its good when people disagree - its good when they see things from different perspectives.
That appears to be your position based on your statement, and I don't think that's a sensible position. But I could be wrong. There could exist somewhere in this world a weapon that is about three feet long, not a hammer or axe and can only be wielded with two hands. I doubt it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
But if it doesn't exist, would you be willing to concede that perhaps you jumped to a false conclusion?
Edit: I did think of one object that could be less than 3 feet long, could be wielded only as a two-handed weapon, and isn't an axe, hammer or sword. I don't think, though, it would be considered "something like" the pictured rod.
Wrecan: Something that short is not exclusively a two-handed weapon.
However, for a two-handed weapon, short or long is irrelevant. What matters is heavy or light.
Players Handbook 215: Weapons are classified as either onehanded or two-handed. A one-handed weapon is light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand. A two-handed weapon is too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands. ... Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.
If something is too heavy, it must use two hands. Some weapons are light but awkward, thus must also use two hands. Some weapons are light, but have long handle that can deliver better leverage.
What distinguishes a "mace" from a "greatclub" is weight.
A baseball bat weighs normally weighs under 3 lbs. If something like it weighed 10 lbs, it would be a greatclub.
Whats the obsession with wood?
Wood is irrelevant.
A baseball bat made out of wood is under 3 lbs. If it was made out of solid steel it would weigh much more.
My next character shall be an orc fighter who wields a log just like that. I shall name him Rekk Kahn in your honor.
That does not mean that every ten-pound piece of pipe is too unwieldy to use with two hands. You are assuming that the weights listed are a minimum or maximum weight for any given weapon, and that's not true. It's simply the weight to be used for the weapon when calculating encumbrance, and that number was derived taking into account the weapon's mass, its bulk and its accoutrements (just as it has in every prior edition).
All we really know is that a greatclub has the following qualities:
- It is in the mace family, as opposed to hammers, axes, swords, etc.
- It's head is heavier than its handle
- It is too unwieldy and/or heavy to be wielded with one hand by an average medium humanoid creature.
- It is sufficiently wieldy and light to be wielded with two hands by an average medium humanoid creature.
- Common greatclubs weigh 10 lbs.
As long as a weapon meets the first four criteria it is a greatclub. You, however, are inappropriately elevating the fifth criteria into a hard and fast rule.
Here is a ten-pound dumbbell.
I could easily hold it in one hand and use it as a weapon -- and this isn't even properly designed as a weapon. If you were to fashion it into a rod, it would be less than three-feet long, and -- though I'd get easily winded -- would serve perfectly well as a one-handed cudgel.
However, if you were to elongate it so that it was longer than my leg, it would soon become unwieldy. I'd become unable to properly grip it from the handle (though I could carry it around from the middle).
That's because the effective mass increases the longer the weapon gets. That's why carrying a pipe from the center feels like carrying less mass than when you carry it from one end.
Now, perhaps you're theorizing that the quoted section above is rewriting the laws of physics? Are you saying that in D&D-world, a ten-lb. piece of pipe is too unwieldy to use one-handed, no matter what is feasible here in the real world?
You realize metal is heavier than wood, and takes up less space.
As I stated in my post, the material is irrelevant. The reason that log can't be wielded with one hand is because of its diameter, not its mass or materials.
A baseball bat made out of wood is under 3 lbs. If it was made out of solid steel it would weigh much more.
And would still be a one-handed (though versatile) weapon.
wrecan,
My next character shall be an orc fighter who wields a log just like that. I shall name him Rekk Kahn in your honor.
Actually, the log picture I posted is of petrified wood (it was the only log I could find on google images) and probably weighs close to 500 lbs.!!
A baseball bat weighs normally weighs under 3 lbs. If something like it weighed 10 lbs, it would be a greatclub.
This is the way I see it too.
Here are the rules I cited:
- A greatclub is in the mace family, as opposed to hammers, axes, swords, etc.
- A greatclub's head is heavier than its handle by virtue of being in the mace family.
- A greatclub is too unwieldy and/or heavy to be wielded with one hand by an average medium humanoid creature because it is listed as a two-handed weapon.
- It is sufficiently wieldy and light to be wielded with two hands by an average medium humanoid creature because it is a two-handed weapon.
Which of those are not rules?
Here's the rule you're making up:
The weights listed for weapons are thresholds used to determine when a weapon passes from one category (light, one-handed, versatile, two-handed) to another.
That rule is not anywhere in the rulebooks, and that is the premise of your entire argument. Until you can prove that the "10 lbs." listing for the greatclub is the basis for when something is a mace rather than a greatclub, it is your argument that is based on invented rules and not mine. Good luck.
- Traditional baseball bats are made out white ash wood.
- The density of white ash wood is about 40 lbs/cubic-ft.
- The density of steel is about 490 lbs/cubic-ft.
- Thus, a solid steel basebal bat weights over 12 times a solid wood baseball bat.
- A typical baseball bat weighs over 2 lbs.
So, a baseball bat that was made out of SOLID steel would weigh about 24 lbs.
A baseball bat and even something thinner (closer to a cane) can easily be 10 lbs or more.
Wrecan: What rules did I make up?
[This:] A ten-lb. baseball bat would be a versatile weapon because it could be swung one-handed or two-handed.
Says you.
Heh, Id like to see someone use such a heavy weapon one handed!
In the Players Handbook, theres no such thing as a weapon that weighs 10 lbs without also being two-handed.
According to the Players Handbook - all mace group weapons are the same shape. So anything relating to shape is irrelevant.
That leaves size and weight.
The differences in weight are clear and explicit. Black and white. 3 lb, 6 lb, 10 lbs.
The difference in size is vague. It seems theyr all about the size of an arm.
Weight (which is explicit) is the better criterion for catagorizing weapons.
Says you.
Yes, says me. Also, says the rules I cited.
What you failed to do was show where I mis-cited a rule or how my application of the rules is inaccurate.
A ten-lb. tube can be wielded as a weapon. I have a ten-lb. dumbbell in my basement. I lift it with one hand every day. I could easily swing it around for 24-30 seconds (4-5 rounds -- the typical length of D&D combat) just fine with one hand. (In fact, I do so, albeit slowly and repetitively every morning for one full minute and am not particularly winded. And I do it in my off hand as well!)
I could also swing a ten-pound steel rod the length of a baseball bat. So could you, assuming you don't suffer form a physical malady.
In the Players Handbook, theres no such thing as a weapon that weighs 10 lbs without also being two-handed.
Under that reasoning there's no such thing as a weapon that doesn't look like the pictured greatclub that isn't a greatclub.
Are you arguing that if a weapon doesn't weigh exactly what is listed in the PHB, then it doesn't exist? There are no 11-lb. greatclubs? No 9-lb. greatclubs?
As I asked before, show me the rule that says the weight listed in the PHB is a determining factor when deciding in what category a weapon should be placed. The weights are listed for encumbrance and descriptive purposes. But since we're discussing reflavoring, they are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the mechanical requirements and capacities of the weapon: the weapon family to which it belongs, and how many hands it takes to wield. That's what defines a weapon in 4th edition D&D.
So, for the second time, can you cite me a rule that states that the listed weapon weights are prerequisites for categorizing weapons? That is the premise on which your argument hinges.
According to the Players Handbook - all mace group weapons are the same shape. So anything relating to shape is irrelevant.
Yes, they're the same shape, as that shape is defined: head heavier than haft, and no hammer, blade or axe attached.
That leaves size and weight.
No! You are ignoring how many hands it takes to wield. That is the explicit way weapons are distinguished. One-handed weapons can be wielded with one or two hands (and if they have the versatile trait are more effective with two hands). Two-handed weapons can be wielded with two hands only.
By ignoring this crucial and explicit distinction you are committing a critical error of logic.
The differences in weight are clear and explicit. Black and white. 3 lb, 6 lb, 10 lbs.
For the third time: where does it say those weights are listed for the purpose of differentiating weapons by category?
Consider this: The same chart that lists weights also lists prices. If someone sells my character a greatclub for 9 sp, rather than 1 gp, is it still a greatclub? If he sells it to me for 5 gp is it magically turned into a scythe (which otherwise has the same category, damage, prof., range and weight -- though not weapon group -- as a greatclub)?
Or -- more reasonably -- the table isn't what defines the weapon category. The definition of the weapon categories found on page 215 of the PHB does. And that definition states that a greatclub is a weapon that must be wielded with two hands.
Under your logic, if I were to lop 5 lbs. of one of my 15-lb. dumbbells, so that one side weighed more than the other, and if I grabbed the resulting 10-lb. weight from the lighter end, that I would be holding a greatclub? nAnd further that in the world of 4th edition D&D, it is impossible to wield such a weapon with only one hand -- that this weight (which would only be about a foot long, mind you) could only be swung effectively as a weapon with two hands?!
Take a proper of length of wood and cap a good portion of the bottom in a heavy metal with the end being pure metal. That would result in a heaver thicker head and would be too wield to use in one hand as the end would be too heavy to aim the weapon right.
On the end up a ball you you can grip it. Just below that would be the area that you hold it by to swing it like a weapon.
Alternately a similair setup made of all metal would be possible. That would allow a thinner shaft. I go see no good reason why this wouldn't work.
The PH doesnt explain what makes one weapon versatile or two-handed.
But whatever that difference is, it can be in the mace group and it can be made out of metal.
If your argument boils down to "only wooden maces can be greatclubs", you are wrong.
Maybe your fixating on wood, and not able to process that these weapons can be made out of metal?
Calron: The greatclub in pictured on page 216 of the Player's Handbook and it looks speciously like a baseball bat with iron wrapped around specific parts.
Exactly. Even in the PH illustration, the "greatclub" looks pretty much a baseball bat.
Yes, they're the same shape, as that shape is defined: head heavier than haft, and no hammer, blade or axe attached.
That actually doesn't demand the same shape. Rather a similar shape. There is a difference. If there wasn't a mace would be shaped the greatclub and morning star would also be the same shape.
No! You are ignoring how many hands it takes to wield. That is the explicit way weapons are distinguished. Light weapons are no more effective two-handed than one. Versatile weapons can be wielded with one or two and are more effective with two hands. Two-handed weapons can be wielded with two hands only.
By ignoring this crucial and explicit distinction you are committing a critical error of logic.
Actually you have assumed how many hands it would take to wield .
As such a critical part of your rebuttal is missing.
An interesting question come to mind. How is it determined whether a weapon is "too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands."? For example look at the pictures of the mace and the greatclub. They are almost identical, but the greatclub is longer.
The PH doesnt explain what makes one weapon versatile or two-handed.
Exactly, which is why your constant reference to the "weight" listing on the weapon chart is nonsensical. The PHB never says that's the difference between a one-handed and two-handed weapon.
But whatever that difference is, it can be in the mace group and it can be made out of metal.
I never said otherwise.
If your argument boils down to "only wooden maces can be greatclubs", you are wrong.
I never said that. In fact, every time you raised the canard that I'm making an argument about the material of the weapon I've explicitly stated that the material is irrelevant. To review:
Post 161: "Call it a steel walking stick, a great rod or a scepter."
Post 177: "what makes a club-like weapon one handed vs. two-handed is going to be its length."
Post 179: "But this is two-handed not because of its mass, but of its diameter"
Post 185: "the material is irrelevant."
So will you please stop imagining arguments I have never made? I posted a picture of a log because of its diameter (which I stated), not its material. A metal cylinder would have worked as well for my example.
Even in the PH illustration, the "greatclub" looks pretty much a baseball bat.
For it to be a two-handed weapon, it would have to be significantly larger, however. Unless magically, people in D&D world are unable to heft a baseball bat like a weapon with one hand.
For it to be a two-handed weapon, it would have to be significantly larger, however. Unless magically, people in D&D world are unable to heft a baseball bat like a weapon with one hand.
Where do the rules say this?
Actually you have assumed how many hands it would take to wield .
No, I haven't. I could wield a ten-pound metal cane as a weapon. Any able-bodied person can. I swing significantly more than that in a controlled manner for ten D&D rounds every morning with one hand.
Ten pounds is not the insurmountable weight people seem to think it is. People don't make weapons that heavy because it's overkill (no pun intended) and will tire you out quicker than a three pound club would with not much more effectiveness. People use two-handed weapons not for the heft, but for the reach.
How is it determined whether a weapon is "too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands."? For example look at the pictures of the mace and the greatclub. They are almost identical, but the greatclub is longer.
Exactly. Length should be the determining factor because that's how people distinguished one- and two-handed weapons in the real world -- you can slug someone before they can get close enough to stick a dagger between your ribs.
Where do the rules say this?
Last I checked medium humanoids had about the same capacity as humanoids in the real world. Are we really reducing this argument to "If the rules don't say people urinate, then humans in D&D never pee!"? (Which is analogous to "If the rules don't say people can swing a ten-pound rod one-handed then they can't!") Please tell me that's not where this argument is headed.
Or are you saying a ten-pound 3-ft. pipe can't be wielded one-handed? Ten pounds is not a lot of weight.
Here's someone lifting ten-pounds underwater with one hand. Let's please stop exalting the "ten-pound weight" as some monumental burden that can only be swung two-handed.
Haldrik: The PH doesnt explain what makes one weapon versatile or two-handed.
Wrecan: Exactly
Which is why your arbitrary opinion about what does or doesnt make a weapon "two-handed", is irrelevant.
The PH even has a picture of what is more-or-less a baseball bat and calls it a "two-handed" weapon - this "greatclub" is just a heavy baseball bat.
Wrecan, we should go by the Players Handbook and not the stuff that you are making up.
Wrecan: For it to be a two-handed weapon, it would have to be significantly larger.
Wrecan, your assumption is false.
Your noncanonical claims about short or long, big or small, are irrelevant.
[snip]
[snip]
So your argument is based of real world physic rather than the rules. As you have determined that the greatclub pictured in the book should be a one handed weapon, I would even say that you might be giving real world physics priority over the rules.
As a corollary to Are we really reducing this argument to "If the rules don't say people urinate, then humans in D&D never pee!"? I offer the counter argument "Are we saying you can do it because the rules don't say you cannot?" Rather than reducing the argument to "I houserule your argument away!" we should look at what would fit within the current rule set.
Rules wise the only thing that determines whther a weapon is two handed is "too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands". The quoted part is from page 215 of the Player's Handbook.
The exact point for above is determined by the entry for the weapon being under a two-handed collumn.
So we have the questions, How heavy is a greatclub? (10 lbs.) and How it is balanced?
The pipe reached 10lbs, so that leaves balance.
Dude, that clears up everything: That's a picture of a wizard with a cane that could be used as a club or, given the heavy metalic properties you're mentioning, a mace. A great club is a two-handed weapon. That is no two-handed weapon. The way he's holding it, the size ... it's a club or a mace. One-handed with versatile sounds about right. (Although, granted, it's not a quarter staff as the DM originally ruled.)
Well, the argument has certainly progressed much further from this post, but I thought I'd start at this point anyway. Sure, that could be a one-handed weapon. Except, the OP might be thinking "Normally one-handed weapon + old man + Strength score of 8 = it's a two-handed weapon for him now."
Let's look at it from process of elimination. If we assume he wants it to be a two-handed weapon to emphasize the weakly nature of the old man and the "last ditch defense" intended usage of the weapon, then the club and the mace are out (even though the mace is one-handed/versatile, it's still out because it allows for one-handed which the aforementioned assumption disallows). This leaves the morningstar and the greatclub. Well, considering the greatclub does less damage, weighs more, and is otherwise in the exact same weapon group "two-handed simple mace", I think we can rule out munchkinism. It's only advantage is that it costs less, and if we need to really deal with that, he can just say his particular greatclub/walking cane costs more because of its ornate handle.
RD, definitely go back and try to explain your case again. I had a similar situation. We were doing the World's Largest Dungeon, and I had never played a Binder before, so I tried to pitch that idea. The DM had never seen a Binder in action before (I know he's looked through the ToM at least once; he built a 6th level Rogue with a +55 Hide modifier using it once) so he asked me how a Binder worked. As I think I understand the World's Largest Dungeon, it disallows teleportation and summoning effects, and I think I used the terminology "a Binder summons a vestige" not realized that he'd be thinking "Summoning = conjuration (summoning) effect" which is not allowed in the WLD and not actually what the Binder does anyway.
So definitely go back and make sure your DM knows exactly what you're envisioning and expecting when you say "greatclub/walking cane".
As a possible inspiration for your pitch, consider Inu-Yasha. He manages to carry the Tetsaiga with one hand and even wield it with one hand. Except for the short while when it becomes to heavy to even move with. The only thing keeping a DM from allowing an otherwise nonmagical weapon to suddenly become heavy (and thus two-handed specifically) is his own preconceptions.
So your argument is based of real world physic rather than the rules.
Actually, I've been trying to get Haldrik support his assertion from long ago that the weight entry in the equipment chart is the factor that determines when a weapon is one-handed or two-handed, because that's the assertion that I was challenging. My assertion that a 10 lb. pipe can be wielded as a weapon in real-life physics was merely being used to provide a counter-example.
Haldrik has apparently abandoned the argument, since after three requests he has refused to explain how he can make that assertion and instead has decided to pretend that my example did not occur to counter his blanket assertion that a three-foot ten-lb. rod is a greatclub under RAW, rather that can be, based on the DM's subjective (and not the player's) determination on what physics are like in his world.
Haldrik's the one who proclaimed the player to be right an the DM to be wrong (and probably abusive!). (Post 170) And then when I asked him to substantiate it he decided to get personal and accuse me of having a problem with him (and accused me of abusing my power as a VCL -- though I'm not a VCL). And at the same time he invented an argument for me that I had previously expressly denied making. And then when I countered his argument with a real-world example he decided to pretend it was an affirmative argument so he could deflect the fact that his initial argument (accompanied by a pernicious accusation against the DM in question who isn't even here to defend himself) was unsupportable.
I don't have a problem with Haldrik personally. He's probably a swell guy when he steps away from the computer. I do have a problem with the arguments he has made.
As you have determined that the greatclub pictured in the book should be a one handed weapon, I would even say that you might be giving real world physics priority over the rules.
The picture in the book doesn't give any scale. People (i.e., you and Haldrik) are assuming it's as long as a baseball bat because it has the general shape of a baseball bat.
I offer the counter argument "Are we saying you can do it because the rules don't say you cannot?"
No, I'm saying that with exception-based rules design, the game assumes things work the way they do in the real world unless the rules say they don't (such as with magic) or if the DM house rules they don't. Otherwise, you end up with people claiming elves cry chocolate because the rules fail to say they don't.
so that leaves balance.
Yes, and in real life (which is all we have left to go on, balance is a function of length, distribution and diameter). So the DM in this case apparently decided a three-foot rod with appropriate weight distribution and not an unwieldy diameter is not insufficiently balanced to be wielded as a one-handed weapon.
On what rules basis did Haldrik declare that the DM was wrong for ruling that? You seem to agree the rules don't provide the basis, so isn't it up to the DM to determine how things work in his world? And, if so, isn't the DM within his rights to nix the OP's request?
Note: I think the DM should have simply asked the OP to increase the length of the rod about six inches, rather than telling him it would have to be a quarterstaff. (That suggestion is equally nonsensical! A three-foot quarterstaff?! That makes me think either the DM wasn't listening at all or the OP failed to properly physically describe the rod he wanted.)
What distinguishes a "mace" from a "greatclub" is weight.
A baseball bat weighs normally weighs under 3 lbs. If something like it weighed 10 lbs, it would be a greatclub.
I disagree, i think it's a combination of size and weight. I have a pair of great swords at home that weight wise you could swing one handed, but size wise would be very ineffective due to inbalance and leverage issue.
But even accepting the weight argument, you're effectively taking something the PC manipulates, "wields," in one hand while walking - using it as a walking stick - and then saying it's a two-handed weapon. This doesn't work to me. If he wants to use it as a cane and not a walker, it has to be a one-handed weapon.
Except, the OP might be thinking "Normally one-handed weapon + old man + Strength score of 8 = it's a two-handed weapon for him now."
Let's look at it from process of elimination. If we assume he wants it to be a two-handed weapon to emphasize the weakly nature of the old man and the "last ditch defense" intended usage of the weapon, then the club and the mace are out (even though the mace is one-handed/versatile, it's still out because it allows for one-handed which the aforementioned assumption disallows).
If the old man is so weak that he has to swing the cane two-handed, then it still should be a one-handed weapon. In your analysis, the old man would be too weak at all to lift a two-handed weapon.
A walking stick is a one-handed device. When he picks it up to hit someone, it should be analagous: another one-handed device, a versatile one to allow for the 2-handed-swing-away flavor.
The only reason to demand it be a great club is so it hits harder, which actually undermines the flavor the OP supposedly wanted.
Haldrik: What distinguishes a "mace" from a "greatclub" is weight.
McThorin: I disagree. I have a pair of great swords at home that weight wise you could swing one handed, but size wise would be very ineffective, due to inbalance and leverage issue.
Reallife physics isnt authoritative in a D&D fantasy world.
In any case, in reallife, even a longsword blade only weighs about 3 lbs. (Similar to a baseball bat.) Even a Claymore blade only weighs about 5 lbs! The example of your swords suggests a 10 lb weapon must be a two-handed weapon, since even lighter ones require two-hands.
Regarding weight and size. Look again at the illustration of the greatclub in the Players Handbook. If you remove the metal rings, it becomes a 6-lb wood "mace" (or less!). If you put the metal rings back on, it becomes a 10-lb "greatclub" again. The length remains the same. The only difference is weight.
McThorin: you're effectively taking something the PC manipulates, "wields," in one hand while walking - using it as a walking stick - and then saying it's a two-handed weapon. This doesn't work to me. If he wants to use it as a cane and not a walker, it has to be a one-handed weapon.
Ah. Thats a reasonable point. If the weapon requires two hands, why wouldnt its use as a "cane" require two hands too? Even tho the cane usage isnt the same thing as weapon usage, it suggests Versatility: one hand as cane, two hands as weapon.
Personally, I agree. I think the pain-cane works best as a Versatile 6-lb mace. 10 lbs (more than a gallon of milk) is awefully heavy for the flavor of a feeble elder using it conveniently as a cane.
But the player said he prefers the character to have a greatmace. (Explicitly, this isnt for optimization, since the mace seems to be strictly a better weapon.) The fact is, the option of a metal greatclub is possible, and while I myself wouldnt choose it, I see no reason to deny it to someone who wants it. *shrugs*
If the old man is so weak that he has to swing the cane two-handed, then it still should be a one-handed weapon. In your analysis, the old man would be too weak at all to lift a two-handed weapon.
A walking stick is a one-handed device. When he picks it up to hit someone, it should be analagous: another one-handed device, a versatile one to allow for the 2-handed-swing-away flavor.
The only reason to demand it be a great club is so it hits harder, which actually undermines the flavor the OP supposedly wanted.
How does my analysis say that? A walking stick is a one-handed device (for the purposes of walking with it), but in order to not just pick it up a foot off the ground and actually hold it shoulder-level and swing with it (with as much accuracy as an 8 Strength allows), it would need to be two-handed.
And the Greatclub hits less hard than the Morningstar (which I think was suggested), so no, it doesn't undermine the flavor the OP wanted.
Wrecan: Haldrik has apparently abandoned the argument, since after three requests he has refused to explain how he can make that assertion.
Wrecan, I dont make any assertion. You do make an arbitrary unsupported assertion.
You claim to know what makes a weapon necessarily versatile versus two-handed. But one, in reallife your wrong, and two, in gameplay your making up your own rules.
Apparently in reallife, all 10-lb weapons that are designed for melee require two hands. In the entire history of the human species, your "versatile" weapon lacks example. [PS: I challenge anyone to find a 10-lb melee weapon that is regularly used onehanded. If such a weapon did exist, it would be useful in this discussion.]
Yet you continue to try impose your [houserules] on other gamers, who know better.
But if this DM tends towards this more strict "my way or the highway" ideal, take the advice of finding a better one. You're gonna have many more arguments this way. These are the DMs who don't know that they're on a power trip. Or worse, do know and don't care. Just don't do it.
Also, don't make enemies. Be nice.
Try to DM a while and see for yourself just how often players try to get mechanical benefits for no or negligible drawbacks and only bending the rules a little. if you don´t believe me, you need to check on the CharOp forum more. the DM has to say NO, a lot!
Agreed.
If it is an old venerable STR = 8 man, with a stick it is.
In that case, it's a short Q-staff, Do q-staff damage.
If it's a greatclub, it is.
Write in greatclub on your sheet. Greatclub damage.
Simple.
I don't see the drive for a weak guy using a sudden 2-handed Greatclub from nowhere.
Seems like a power gaming, manipulative rules-jack move to me.
If you don't like the fact that the DM saw it coming, bail, and don't sign for his game, because it's a struggle for dominance already, and he'lll win, until you decide to quit trying, and leave anyway.
Definitely, he thinks "If I give him this what will he want next? 2-H sword damage on a 2 lb dagger?"
Find a game where the DM doesn't give a flying damn about his game, and just throws more orcs in if the players start winning in big battles, wielding light greatclubs with venerable PCs. I mean, that what you really want, right?
Good luck.
The DM accused me of "making up weaons" and told me to remove it. When I pointed out to him that it was just a greatclub being reflavored he then responded with "well fine, but since it's MY campaign, if you insist on using a walking cane as a weapon it will use the stats of a quarterstaff instead. That makes more sense to me after all."
Did you want it to look like a walking cane?
[snip]
If you look at the rules for improved weapons then that lead pipe would be a two-handed weapon. The closest other weapon that actually approaches it by weight is the greatclub. I've looked over the rule an no 1-handed weapon is over 8 pounds and no 2-handed weapon other than an improvised one is under 8 pounds.
I'm not sure that is would be possible to reliability wield that lead pipe as a 1-handed weapon in real life. The mass alone might not be allot, but then you swing it the length of the pipe and the speed of the swing will make it hard to recover from a swing.
For the improved weapon, 1-5 pounds comes out as a 1-handed weapon, but 6-12 pounds would be 2-handed. This is the only separation by weight in 1/2 handed weapons that can be found in the rules set.
This of course could simply be a case that rules ≠ common sense.
As for the scale of the greatclub pic the handle should give a clue. To get a good grip it couldn't be much greater that a baseball bat. I did try an Internet search to find stats for a real great club. I basically came up short, but I did find this.
Note: I think the DM should have simply asked the OP to increase the length of the rod about six inches, rather than telling him it would have to be a quarterstaff. (That suggestion is equally nonsensical! A three-foot quarterstaff?! That makes me think either the DM wasn't listening at all or the OP failed to properly physically describe the rod he wanted.)
Huh, wouldn't it have to be that long to use as a cane?
Wrecan, I dont make any assertion.
Perhaps you are unaware what an "assertion" is. Because the following statements of you are assertions:
- Per PH, the only difference between "club" (3 lb), "mace" (6 lb), and "greatclub" (10 lb) seems weight. -post 133
- The player is ... in this case correct per RAW. -post 170
- However, for a two-handed weapon, short or long is irrelevant. What matters is heavy or light. -post 180.
Each of these is an assertion. Despite repeated requests, you have yet to either retact these assertions or support them.
Ergo, they remain unsupported. In fact, they've all been contradicted.
The weights you listed in the first point are not the "only" differences between weapons. Handedness is a difference. Price is a difference. You have yet to cite the rule that says the weight listing is what is used to determine when a reflavored weapon shifts categories, as opposed to say, price or the ability to wield it with one or two hands.
Without the first point, your assertion in point two falls apart. And you have certainly not shown that length is irrelevant.
You claim to know what makes a weapon necessarily versatile versus two-handed.
What makes a weapon versatile vs. two-handed is that a versatile weapon can be wielded one-handed and a two-handed weapon cannot. That's it. Anything else is an assumption.
One possible answer is length. You asserted quite blanketly that the only criterion is weight. That's your assertion across several posts. Stop trying to pretend that my counterexample was in response to anything other than your false assertion.
Apparently in reallife, all 10-lb weapons that are designed for melee require two hands.
Citation please?
[PS: I challenge anyone to find a 10-lb melee weapon that is regularly used onehanded.
And I challenge anybody to find a three-foot weapon that must be wielded with one hand. A challenge I issued more than thirty posts ago. You're arguing that the lack of a 10-lb. one-handed weapon is evidence that it cannot exist. That's arguing from the negative (the absences of evidence is not the evidence of absence) and a classical logical fallacy.
It is equally fallacious (yet analogous to your fallacious argument) to point out that there have never been any weapons designed for melee that are both less than three feet long and must be wielded with two hands (i.e., cannot be wielded one-handed).
And that's why your assertion that the player is correct per RAW is wrong. RAW does not explain when a weapon is versatile vs. two-handed other than the latter must be wielded two-handed and the former can be wielded either one- or two-handed.
Since it is a judgment call, the DM gets to make the judgment, not the player.
Yet you continue to try impose your [houserules] on other gamers, who know better.
[sarcasm]I must have done that when I decreed the player to be correct and that the DM was possibly abusive for using his independent judgment.[/sarcasm] Oh wait. That was you.
I haven't been trying to impose my houserules on other gamers. I don't even have a houserule on this. I'm the one saying that the weapon category of a ten-pound three-foot rod is a judgment call and so the DM acted appropriately (even though he did so impolitically and probably for the wrong reasons).
You're the one accusing DMs of being possibly abusive and decreeing that RAW distinguishes one- and two-handed weapons "only" on weight.
If you look at the rules for improved weapons then that lead pipe would be a two-handed weapon. The closest other weapon that actually approaches it by weight is the greatclub. I've looked over the rule an no 1-handed weapon is over 8 pounds and no 2-handed weapon other than an improvised one is under 8 pounds.
This argument is still premised on the assumption that weight is the "only" (to borrow the word Haldrik uses) factor in the determination as opposed to one factor, and that it's really up to the DM to decide how an improvised weapon should be classified.
Weights are just general guidelines, and it assumes these weapons are not balanced for combat (the rod in the OP would presumably be balanced for combat, and not an improvised weapon) I don't think I could wield by 10-lb. dumbbell with two hands if I tried. There's just not enough surface area. I could definitely swing it for damage with one hand, though.
Which is why the rules -- imo -- appropriately leave the determination of weapon category to the DM, within some general guidelines.
At any rate, the quarterstaff and morningstar are two-handed weapons under 8 lbs. The quarterstaff is 4 lbs., which, under the improvised weapons table, would make it a one-handed weapon. Thus, weight cannot be the only factor in determining whether a weapn is one-handed, versatile or two-handed.
This of course could simply be a case that rules ≠ common sense.
I think some people are assuming the rules exalt weight over common sense. But that's not written down. It's just an assumption. I'm saying the rules don't specify the distinction and therefore leave it in the DM's judgment based on whatever factors he believes reasonable.
Huh, wouldn't it have to be that long to use as a cane?
If he thought "walking stick" rather than cane, a quarterstaff would make a sensible proposal. Really, it's pretty clear the OP was a case of poor communication gone horribly wrong on both sides.
Wrecan: I dont have a house rule.
Your assertion is, a 10-lb mace 3-foot mace MUST be "versatile". Your silly ruling is unofficial for gameplay, and ridiculous for reallife.
Your assertion is, a 10-lb mace 3-foot mace MUST be "versatile".
No, that's how I might decide it because there is no rules on the subject.
Your silly ruling is unofficial for gameplay
Any ruling is unofficial for gameplay because there is no rule that covers the subject. That's why, unlike you, I never declared that the RAW dictates a position.
and ridiculous for reallife.
That has not been demonstrated.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
At any rate, the quarterstaff and morningstar are two-handed weapons under 8 lbs. The quarterstaff is 4 lbs., which, under the improvised weapons table, would make it a one-handed weapon. Thus, weight cannot be the only factor in determining whether a weapn is one-handed, versatile or two-handed.
Oops. Still there is no one-handed weapon over 8 pounds. The distinction listed under the Rules As Written are balance, weight, and construction.
Balance and construction would make the quarterstaff and morningstar. As it is you've listed only enough for a one way distinction.
I'm still not sure if a 10 pound weapon can reliably be used as a one-handed weapon. The weight would be multiplied by the swing and make recovery difficult.
Weights are just general guidelines, and it assumes these weapons are not balanced for combat (the rod in the OP would presumably be balanced for combat, and not an improvised weapon) I don't think I could wield by 10-lb. dumbbell with two hands if I tried. There's just not enough surface area. I could definitely swing it for damage with one hand, though.
Sorry for the out of order quote.
I could swing both a morningstar and quarterstaff for damage one handed. I could not however use them reliably as weapons that way. Someone stronger and better trained might be able to though. That leads me to believe that the rules are not using just the ability to swing it for damage as the guideline here. You need to swing it well enough to get the proficiency bonus if you know that you are doing.
I'm saying the rules don't specify the distinction and therefore leave it in the DM's judgment based on whatever factors he believes reasonable.
Sounds fair to me.
Oops. Still there is no one-handed weapon over 8 pounds. The distinction listed under the Rules As Written are balance, weight, and construction.
And price, if you're going to assume that table is what criteria is used to distinguish one-handed, two-hande and versatile weapons. I make no such assumption.
I'm still not sure if a 10 pound weapon can reliably be used as a one-handed weapon.
Nobody would bother as it would be poor weapon design, whether intended for one hands or two. I've never seen a weapon that is both 10 lbs. or greater and under three-feet long. (Which is another potential reason the OP's suggestion probably shouldn't be implemented.)
A stunted two-handed weapon is waste of a hand that could hold a shield. A heavy one-handed weapon is clunky.
Sounds fair to me.
Thanks. I don't think we really disagree.
And price, if you're going to assume that table is what criteria is used to distinguish one-handed, two-hande and versatile weapons. I make no such assumption.
So I didn't assume in that statement, I used the Rules As Written. The cut off point isn't listed though.
Also, there's no mechanic for when a weapon is unbalanced. As I said, weight is clearly not the only factor. It's the only factor for which a typical weight is listed, but that's not the same.
Also, there's no mechanic for when a weapon is unbalanced. As I said, weight is clearly not the only factor. It's the only factor for which a typical weight is listed, but that's not the same.
I didn't say that weight was the only factor either.
Were it 3.5, I'd probably wonder how something twice the size of a baseball bat is a mere cane. As a Club is basically a baseball bat, in reference to our modern world. I'd probably wonder on an alternative, as was mentioned, a mace why not works.
In 4th edition, the Greatclub sucks more than the Morningstar, at this point, I wouldn't care enough to question it. Of course I suppose it's because the Morning star got spikes, which makes it inherently stronger, all the great club has is the nifty power of higher average. Of course 4th edition has different weapon size rules and such, which means a Greatclub would probably be a bit bigger and such than a mace.
Either way, I don't see this old man being dangerous, so he's got a stick, woopity dang doo. As a guard, I have a sword, or a halberd, I can probably sunder that thing in twine if I really have to. As a guard, I'm going to be more worried about those lumbering 6ft tall half-orcs wielding two handed battle axes, or the minotaurs with their lovable 20lb hammers running around.
I don't see the drive for a weak guy using a sudden 2-handed Greatclub from nowhere.
Seems like a power gaming, manipulative rules-jack move to me.
If you don't like the fact that the DM saw it coming, bail, and don't sign for his game, because it's a struggle for dominance already, and he'lll win, until you decide to quit trying, and leave anyway.
Definitely, he thinks "If I give him this what will he want next? 2-H sword damage on a 2 lb dagger?"
Find a game where the DM doesn't give a flying damn about his game, and just throws more orcs in if the players start winning in big battles, wielding light greatclubs with venerable PCs. I mean, that what you really want, right?
Good luck.
In defense of the OP (and reflavoring in general), let me pose the following situations.
Ex 1: A player wants to play a Rogue with a tendency towards acting at range (specifically, he/she wants to play Haley Starshine). Rogues may use slings, light blades, and crossbows with their powers and sneak attack, not bows. So the player asks to just use a Hand Crossbow and call it a bow. It functions in every way as a Crossbow (in game terms), it just that when the player draws his character out, she's holding a bow instead of a crossbow.
Powergaming jack-move, or simple reflavoring?
Ex 2: A player wants to play a Monk and the DM agrees to use the Ranger variant provided by the Character Conversion article by Wizards (including the part where they get +3 Proficiency with their unarmed strikes and 1d8 damage). The player says no thanks and would rather use the Spiked Gauntlets from the Adventurer's Vault instead (since those can actually be enhanced like normal weapons). He then asks that he still be considered to be unarmed, rather than just wearing two big spiky gloves all the time. If necessary, they can be like hand wraps, so that there's still the issue of being caught without his weapons like anyone else.
Manipulative, or is he still leaving the mechanics alone and just reflavoring for the sake of maintaining character image?
You see, I see those instances of being the exact same thing as what the OP was trying to do. The only difference is that a walking stick carries a certain in-game image, and maybe I'm naive, but I believe the OP when he says he didn't see that being a problem. In the OP, when he mentioned "You wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick", he suggested that as a possible roleplaying hook, not as an in-game mechanical benefit to be demanded every time.
You know, I'm tempted to tell the OP to just use a greatclub, call it a greatclub, and draw out the character with a greatclub (as pictured in the PHB and everything) held as a walking cane, just to point out the absurdity of the image. Because, RAW, an old man with an 8 Strength is just as capable of using a big honking stick as a weapon as anyone else, he's just less accurate with it and does less damage with it. And anyone can just hold (not wield as a weapon, but hold) any weapon they want in one hand (my Ranger walks around all the time with his double axe carried in one hand), so what difference does it make if he's holding it in one hand and it's slung over his shoulder or if he describes it as a walking stick, leaning on it as he goes. Because mechanically, there is no difference whatsoever.
And then, when everyone figures out that he's using the greatclub as a walking stick anyway, and that there's no mechanical difference to be had, and that since the greatclub is made of wood and so a cane could be made of metal (same weight, but the cane is slimmer/less ridiculous to see an old man leaning on), and that if we make sure it looks weaponized, then there's no problem with trying to force an in-game benefit where one isn't warrented, and that it's just ridiculous that this is even an issue, then maybe the DM'll see what the OP was going for in the first place.
I am joining up with a different group of gamers with a DM that I have never played under before.
I built up a venerable human cleric for his campaign, but when I showed him my character, we ran into some disagreements.
You see, I had listed "Walking Cane" as a melee weapon on my character and used the stats for the greatclub to represent it.
The DM accused me of "making up weaons" and told me to remove it. When I pointed out to him that it was just a greatclub being reflavored he then responded with "well fine, but since it's MY campaign, if you insist on using a walking cane as a weapon it will use the stats of a quarterstaff instead. That makes more sense to me after all."
When I protested, he put his foot down, saying that I didn't have a say in the matter other than that I could choose between quarterstaff stats--or no walking cane weapon at all.
Should the DM have this much control over flavor aspects of the game? What can I do to show him that there is nothing wrong with my way of doing it? What would you do as DM? As a player?
Help.
Do you seriously believe you can use a greatclub as a walking stick?
I'd let you use a walking stick as a weapon, but only as a switch doing 1d4 damage tops. A walking stick is more flimsy than a one handed club, WAY more flimsy than a greatclub, and even smaller than a quarterstaff.
You need to reconsider your point of view. You don't make the decisions, he does.
You don't like that, DM a game yourself or leave.
Do you seriously believe you can use a greatclub as a walking stick?
I'd let you use a walking stick as a weapon, but only as a switch doing 1d4 damage tops. A walking stick is more flimsy than a one handed club, WAY more flimsy than a greatclub, and even smaller than a quarterstaff.
READ...MY...POSTS...IN...THE...THREAD...
Just please stop referring to it as a "walking stick." It's terribly misleading.
So is "cane". Canes (wood or metal) are built to weigh about one pound. They're built that way because the people who use them are feeble and value the lightness.
The heaviest cane I could find for sale was made of ironwood and weighs 3 lbs. Most weigh under a pound, including the ones made of steel.
If your walking-aid is to weigh ten-pounds, it is not going to look like a cane (and the rod in your picture doesn't look like a cane either). (In fact, in Third Edition, magic rods only weighed 5 lbs., though the Rods of Lordly Might and of the Python weighed 10. The Rod of the Python, however, was four feet long, and the Rod of Lordly Might served as a "light mace", not a two-handed weapon.)
Now for a real-world example. This scepter for the South Carolina House of Representatives weighs 11 lbs.
It is described as a "mace". (It is also four feet long)
What you want for your character is neither a cane nor a walking stick. It's a rod or a scepter.
So is "cane". Canes (wood or metal) are built to weigh about one pound. They're built that way because the people who use them are feeble and value the lightness.
The heaviest cane I could find for sale was made of ironwood and weighs 3 lbs. Most weigh under a pound, including the ones made of steel.
If your walking-aid is to weigh ten-pounds, it is not going to look like a cane (and the rod in your picture doesn't look like a cane either).
What you want for your character is neither a cane nor a walking stick. It's a rod or a scepter.
A rod or scepter that my character uses as a walking rod/scepter suits me just fine. Perhaps I will try that term with the DM as it does sound "heavier."
A rod or scepter that my character uses as a walking rod/scepter suits me just fine. Perhaps I will try that term with the DM as it does sound "heavier."
Good luck! Let us know how it turns out!!
Here's the one used by the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland"
It is 17 pounds and about 4.75 feet long.
Of how about the Welsh National Ceremonial Mace?!
Now, that's a greatclub! That dude in the blue robe is gonna get brained!
The Australian ceremonial mace for the House of Representatives is pretty, too. It weighs 17 lbs. and is over 5 feet long.
...
Ex 1: A player wants to play a Rogue with a tendency towards acting at range (specifically, he/she wants to play Haley Starshine). Rogues may use slings, light blades, and crossbows with their powers and sneak attack, not bows. So the player asks to just use a Hand Crossbow and call it a bow. It functions in every way as a Crossbow (in game terms), it just that when the player draws his character out, she's holding a bow instead of a crossbow.
Powergaming jack-move, or simple reflavoring?
If called upon, I'd rule this as a variant PC class, the Rogue Bowman, or somesuch, where Crossbows may be used, but not bows without taking the equivalent Proficiency / Class.
I'm guessing you'd call it reflavoring the Class?
Ex 2: A player wants to play a Monk and the DM agrees to use the Ranger variant provided by the Character Conversion article by Wizards (including the part where they get +3 Proficiency with their unarmed strikes and 1d8 damage). The player says no thanks and would rather use the Spiked Gauntlets from the Adventurer's Vault instead (since those can actually be enhanced like normal weapons). He then asks that he still be considered to be unarmed, rather than just wearing two big spiky gloves all the time. If necessary, they can be like hand wraps, so that there's still the issue of being caught without his weapons like anyone else.
Manipulative, or is he still leaving the mechanics alone and just reflavoring for the sake of maintaining character image?
I'd rule the player can't have it both ways. Unarmed open hand damage has been along those lines since 1e... if the gauntlets are worn, it's armed.
...The only difference is that a walking stick carries a certain in-game image, and maybe I'm naive, but I believe the OP when he says he didn't see that being a problem.
Perhaps. Yet the same can be said for "It's a greatclub with greatclub damage...called a "Walking stick."
In the OP, when he mentioned "You wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick", he suggested that as a possible roleplaying hook, not as an in-game mechanical benefit to be demanded every time.
Perhaps, but my experience with such discussions pre-game is such that it "Clears the way" for later cries of "You cleared this issue earlier." once it comes up over and over in combat, as a schtick for the character to rely on.
..which might not be a bad thing.. but to me 8 STR says a lot for what he can carry, and use...rules as written or not.
You raise some good points, in the whole post.
You see, I had listed "Walking Cane" as a melee weapon on my character and used the stats for the greatclub to represent it.
Just please stop referring to it as a "walking stick." It's terribly misleading.
Hehe it is isn't it, maybe that's why your DM had a problem with it ;)
I am joining up with a different group of gamers with a DM that I have never played under before.
I built up a venerable human cleric for his campaign, but when I showed him my character, we ran into some disagreements.
You see, I had listed "Walking Cane" as a melee weapon on my character and used the stats for the greatclub to represent it.
The DM accused me of "making up weaons" and told me to remove it. When I pointed out to him that it was just a greatclub being reflavored he then responded with "well fine, but since it's MY campaign, if you insist on using a walking cane as a weapon it will use the stats of a quarterstaff instead. That makes more sense to me after all."
When I protested, he put his foot down, saying that I didn't have a say in the matter other than that I could choose between quarterstaff stats--or no walking cane weapon at all.
Should the DM have this much control over flavor aspects of the game? What can I do to show him that there is nothing wrong with my way of doing it? What would you do as DM? As a player?
Help.
Having only one account of the incident, I don't know what to make of this quotation of said DM, but how exactly did you figure that a walking stick has the mass of a great club? The decision to make it count as a quarterstaff makes much more sense. It is entirely reasonable for the DM to state that flavor must be logical, so barring a reasonable counter argument, this DM seems fair, if perhaps abrasive.
A club is not just a stick, in point of fact it is a very heavy and thick and solid stick, and the damage done by it is primarily from it's solid build and weight. A cane is not as thick, nor as solid nor anywhere near as heavy as a greatclub, it simply lacks the mass of a greatclub.
Lets put it another way, lets say you wanted to make a cane-sword, where you could pull a sword out of the cane and slice someone it with, but since that isn't listed you decide to reflavor a GreatSword. Neither could be realistically disguised as a Cane. (rapier would be a better choice)
The easiest way to use game terms to determine what weapon could be used is to use the Hide/Spot skill to disguise the weapon as a harmless cane, it becomes a simple matter that light weapons are easier to conceal and that a weapon that a cane already resembles would be the most effective. In this case a Light Mace made as a Cane would be unidentifiable as a weapon, esentially a 4lb metal rod with the cane handle serving as the weighted end for striking.
To you again: Look at PHB p. 217.
Look at the picture, upper row, 3rd from left: Greatclub.
Height: About as high as a heavy crossbow is long, which is - rough estimate - somewhere around 50 to 70 cm maximum. A Greatclub is not a small tree.
it's really the thickness that gets in the way here, a Greatclub gets it's power from it's impact which takes weight and mass, and particularly is tin on the side you hold it on and centers it's mass on the side that contacts the target, so it's striking surface is at least a foot or more thick if made of wood.
But it is all looking at it the wrong way. Instead of changing a Weapon into a cane, we should change the cane into a weapon.
Start with the cane, and I hold one in my hands right now, one inch thick, 3' long, weighted end ( the handle) Reinforce this by making it out of metal. You now have a metal shaft with a weighted end, essentially a Heavy Mace.
It would be the same as if I wanted to make a Cane Sword, which incedentally is what I am holding in my hand. Concealed blad, under 3' long, less then 1 inch thick, I am simply NOT going to pull a Greatsword out of that, I could argue it as a Short Sword or Rapier though.
If it is made of Wood, then use Quarterstaff, but limited to 1-handed and not a double weapon, if it is made of metal then use Heavy Mace.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks
Is this heavy enough for those of you who believe that weight is the issue?
That said, I would give anyone who saw it a chance to notice that it was heavier than one would expect based on how the player held it. So it wouldn't be reliably effective as a hidden weapon. And it's weight would be 10#, as is a great club, so I would probably require above average strength for the player to use it as a cane.
Carl
If called upon, I'd rule this as a variant PC class, the Rogue Bowman, or somesuch, where Crossbows may be used, but not bows without taking the equivalent Proficiency / Class.
I'm guessing you'd call it reflavoring the Class?
No, I'm not saying use a bow (out-of-game term) instead of a crossbow (out-of-game term), I'm saying use a crossbow (out-of-game term) and when the player describes the character, he calls it a bow (in-game term). It'd be reflavoring the weapon, nothing more.I'd rule the player can't have it both ways. Unarmed open hand damage has been along those lines since 1e... if the gauntlets are worn, it's armed.
What other way is the player trying to have it? In game terms, he is armed. He does have weapons that can be taken away from him. It's just that instead of describing the way he fights as just "spiked gauntlet attack, spiked gauntlet attack, spiked gauntlet attack", he wants to be able to describe it as punch, kick, elbow jab, etc.
The reason I'm on this thread is because I'm kind of seeing the opposition to the OP's idea as indicative of a lack of reimagining. Specifically, I sincerely hope we don't see Monk weapons in the PHB3 (or whenever it comes out). The sai already exists, it's just called a Parrying Dagger. The kama is the Sickle, the nunchaku is the Flail, the Quarterstaff is good as is, the three-section-staff is the Double Flail, etc. The escrima stick is the Club. All of these weapons already exist, as far as I'm concerned, and there's not really any tweaking necessary to bring them into the game.
Now, back to the OP's greatclub walking stick. He has an 8 Strength. So long as the weight of the greatclub combined with the weight of everything else he's carrying doesn't exceed his carrying capacity, then by RAW, he can carry that thing one-handed, two-handed, slung on his back, or any other way he wants. Should he decide to describe the manner in which he carries it as though it were a walking stick, then RAW doesn't interfere with this (because RAW cares about how many hands he uses to attack with it, not how many he uses to carry it in an out-of-combat situation). Should he change the thickness of the object while maintaining it's mass (and making the normally wooden object out of metal might do just that), then the weight doesn't change and the RAW isn't violated. The fact that the greatclub is obviously a weapon and a cane, perhaps even a weaponized cane, is not is the only conceivable problem, and the OP has said that, now that the issue has been raised, that he would be fine with it being very obviously a weapon.
In fact, I'd love for someone to tell me that the following conversation could never happen:
(The PCs are about to enter a city and a squad of guards meets them at the gate.)
Guard: Alright. Everyone, hand over your weapons and other offensive devices for inspection. They will remain in the office of the city watch until such time as you leave.
(The PCs begin handing over their weapons and wands and rods and such. One PC hands over his crossbow and very pointedly does not hand over his greatclub, which looks like a greatclub.)
Guard: Sir, you need to hand over that club, too.
PC: Oh, this? This isn't a weapon. Or rather, it isn't a weapon anymore.
Guard: Oh, really? It's close enough to a weapon to me. Hand it over.
PC: Yeah, you might think so, but look here. You see this crack here (points to a seem which might or might not be an actual crack)? My father used to own this greatclub, but in his last fight, an evil werewolf lord broke both the club and his arm. I've got these metal bands here to hold it together now, but it isn't solid enough to actually fight with anymore.
Guard: (conveniently, the guard is trained in Arcana and knows how to look for magic) But I'm sensing a magical aura around that thing. Are you sure it's no longer a weapon?
PC: Oh, that? It used to be a magic weapon, but that's just leftover residual magic. Believe me, sir, this is not anything you need to concern yourself with.
(This is what we call a Bluff check. Perhaps even a skill challenge. And some important things to note: the DM can make the DC anything from easily passible to very hard to pass. Furthermore, just because the PC completely convinces the guard that it's not a weapon doesn't mean the guard won't still take it anyway; it could just mean that the guard might begin to think that their confiscation procedures are too strict nowadays and then he still abides by them anyway.)
Heck, you can even do the same thing to a sword, just give the Party Wizard a meaningful look as you unsheathe it and have him subtly cast Prestidigitation on it to make it look rusty and uncared for.
Weapon-looking versus not-weapon-looking isn't actually as much of a distinction as you might think.
Take a heavy cane. Hollow it out. Fill it with lead (heck, for a twist, fill it with gold).
Is this heavy enough for those of you who believe that weight is the issue?
That said, I would give anyone who saw it a chance to notice that it was heavier than one would expect based on how the player held it. So it wouldn't be reliably effective as a hidden weapon. And it's weight would be 10#, as is a great club, so I would probably require above average strength for the player to use it as a cane.
Carl
A solid metal cane would still be more of a mace then a Great Club, both are similair in size, shape and construction. And agin I would bring in the comparison of making a Cane with a concealed sword, that you couldn't hide a GreatSword in a cane, nor could you construct a cane/Greatclub.
As for the weight issue, a small pad of thick leather at the tip would soften the thump it would make on the ground, and the weight of a Heavy Mace is much more easier to handle then that of a Greatclub, also as a 1-handed weapon it would be easier to suprise your opponent with it as a weapon (as raising a cane over your head while holding it with both hands is an abvious threat even if it was only a normal cane)
The PC gets a weapon that he actually can conceal, and use with ease, and it's balanced as far as any game issue goes.
[tetsubo]
I did a search on this.
Separately,
Today, I spent Thanksgiving at friends of my mother's. Surprisingly, the husband collected both canes and premodern weaponry, including maces.
I was surprised at how short typical maces are, about a cubit (half a meter), about 1.5 feet. Its much smaller than a baseball bat.
The cane that he regularly used was shaped like a club. It was 3'4'' long whose handle was a large spherical knob, larger than a fist, and whose shaft was tapered, thicker at the top at the knob, thinner at the bottom, and grooved all the way down for gripping. If this exact same shape were made of solid metal, it would definitely be a "greatclub" (two-handed mace) that could serve as a (heavy) walking aid.
Its total length is 107 cm (3.5 feet). It weighs 4 kg (8.8 lbs).
Note my mom's friend uses a reallife cane about this same length (3.33 ft). Its easy to increase the weight from about 9 lbs to about 10 pounds. The business-end of the mace can be a variety of shapes, including a knob that can serve as a cane handle.
the irish Shillelagh, specifically the Loaded-Shillelagh
Which was a walking cane made of hard blackthorn wood filled with molten lead in the head end. Having picked one up and swung it, it is very much a lightmace/club.
So depending on what you wanna look like and how it would be built it is physically possible to have a long walkingstick greatclub, but it'd be dang obvious.
Haldrik, the business end on the mace you picture is conciderably large and could not realisticly be concealed as the handle, by themselves they probably are 20% of the weapon's weight. The business end of the cane, disguised as an ornate handle would not be quite as large, heavy of effective.
The crucial construction of a greatclub or mace is that much of it's mass is centered upon the business end and relies on the leverage that created by the mass centered at the end of the weapon.
A metal cane differs from a Greatclub in that, even if they were the identical weight, the greater mass of the great club is centered upon the head, whereas the mass of a metal cane is more or less evenly dispersed. ON a Greatclub, weight 10 pounds, the bottom handle (say 1' shaft) likely weighs only a pound or 2, whereas the Head of the club carries the bulk of the weight (8 to 9 pounds)
A 3' cane, being entirely of metal, the handle, again about a foot, would weigh in a third of the weapon's weight 3.3 pounds, in reality it would only be the end of the weapon that contacts the target, say the last foot. In the case of a straght cane, even with an ornate handle, I would place the head at 5 pounds.
It is the impact caused by the mass of the head of the weapon that deals the damage and not the weight of the weapon as a whole. The advantage of a metal handle in a mace is not the damage it does to the opponent, but rather that a metal handle can withstand the vigors of being slammed with all your force against the enemy's armor without breaking, a wooden shaft with a metal end would be just as effective, however it would likely snap after prolonged use.
Attaching a 10 pound weight on the handle of a dagger does not make it a greatsword, the extra weight of the handle and shaft of a cane would not make it a greatclub. But again the stats for a heavy Mace is in the book.
MrC: However it would be possible for the handle to be encorperated as the business end and the cane simply inverted when used as a weapon.
Exactly, historical maces have a stunning variety of possible heads. Some are suitable for a handle, some arent.
The business end of the cane, disguised as an ornate handle would not be quite as large, heavy of effective.
Regarding the rest of your post, it is inaccurate. Actually, the handle can be heavy enough. Metal is very heavy, and doesnt take up much space. Morevoer, metal is much stronger than wood (the strength to density ratio), so you can make a shaft using a hollow metal pipe that weighs as little as solid wood but is even stronger. The point is, the use of metal introduces no limitations whatsoever. In fact, a metal greatclub can be much better - more deadly, more wieldly and more economic in size - than the wooden equivalents.
As said, the experts who make historical maces confirmed that the thin solid metal, 3-ft 10-lb two-handed "greatclub" does exist within the standard historical range, that can serve as a walking aid.
Galaktia: The irish Shillelagh, specifically the Loaded-Shillelagh.
Yeah. My mom's friend's cane is more like a shillelagh (but its radially symmetric like a mace). Together, the large spherical knob handle and the thicker upper part of the tapered shaft look like a club, and is an ideal shape for a (non-hollow) solid metal great club. This can serve as a walking aid.
A different option is to make the head a large ornament, so that the greatclub looks like a "ceremonial mace" - like a larger royal scepter - instead of a walking aid.
Both are good flavors.
There are also options somewhere between these two options. But using a royal scepter as a walking aid could seem sacrilegious, if the culture believes royal symbols like this shouldnt touch the floor?
Regarding the rest of your post, it is inaccurate. Actually, the handle can be heavy enough. Metal is very heavy, and doesnt take up much space.
But it does take up space, and the heavier metals, such as lead and gold are also softer and more flexible, which is not ideal for a weapon, iron or steal
Inaccurate, but not wrong. A Bar/Rod, a Mace and a Great Club are three seperate identities, and I would counter that a Greatsword, Bastard Sword and a Rapier share as many characteristics as the "cane" does a Greatclub, and yet all three of these swords have different stats and properties.
The Heavy Mace is listed in the books and we are both agreeing that a Cane would be comparible to a Heavy Mace, so the comparison to a greatclub is redundant with the existance of a mace.
Morevoer, metal is much stronger than wood (the strength to density ratio), so you can make a shaft using a hollow metal pipe that weighs as little as solid wood but is even stronger.
A hollow handle would reduce weight of the weapon as a whole, and thus it would not weight the 10 pounds. The weight of the shaft is not really relevant in eaither case, my point being that the mass of the striking edge is what is important, as the centered mass is what will do the damage, hollowing the handle does not change this.
Here's a picture of a "two-handed mace" (= D&D Great Club).
Its total length is 107 cm (3.5 feet). It weighs 4 kg (8.8 lbs).
Note my mom's friend uses a reallife cane about this same length (3.33 ft). Its easy to increase the weight from about 9 lbs to about 10 pounds. The business-end of the mace can be a variety of shapes, including a knob that can serve as a cane handle.
I would contend that the Mace you show has a significantly large head, one that must weigh as much as 25-30% of the weapon's mass, a good 3 lbs, and I find it would be rather improbable that the handle of a cane would be as bulky (and even made of metal that is bulky)
In point of fact a cane 3.3' with a smaller handle is a significantly different size then the 3.5' mace you show with a large striking edge. Reduce the Head/handle by half and shorten it by 2 inches and your Cane will weight a good 3 or 4 pounds lighter.
But I content that the Heavy Mace, 8lbs is listed in the books and is an appropriate comparison to a cane as described. The greatclub however is not.
MrC: I would contend that the Mace you show has a significantly large head, one that must weigh as much as 25-30% of the weapon's mass, a good 3 lbs, and I find it would be rather improbable that the handle of a cane would be as bulky (and even made of metal that is bulky).
But the head of the pictured mace is made out of thin flat sheets of metal. A solid sphere of metal is MUCH heavier, and takes up less space.
Also when the shaft is tapered, the upper, thicker, heavier end contributes to the impact.
A hollow handle would reduce weight of the weapon as a whole, and thus it would not weight the 10 pounds.
As noted earlier. A thin metal club of this size can weigh upto 24 lbs - or more! Metalwork can be as light as necessary or as heavy as necessary. The limitations that you are assuming, are wrong.
Wacking and slashing with the top 1/2 to 1/3
At times he shifts his grip and the long sword takes a back pace to a spiral swing with the full length of the staff ((Something that in real combat would result in the fighter loosing the full length staff, dropping it and or having it forced from his grip.))
The fighting in Lord of the Rings is pretty, and in alot of cases very accurate, but it still pushes the boundries at alot of points.
As someone who has fought with a Micro, Short and long staff, (2, 4, and 6 Sun (feet) approximately).
I just when and picked up my Jo (4 feet) and my bo (6feet), And tried weilding them at the same time. If I were to fight like that, I'd die to anyone with the slightest knowledge of fighting.
Okay, here's a question for all the naysayers: How would you describe Gandalf in Return of the King? He has a sword in one hand and his staff in the other and he is attacking with both of those. Now, is he wielding a longsword and a staff, the holding of the staff being impossible in one hand by RAW, and therefore what he's doing is impossible to represent in 4E? Or is he just using a club that just so happens to be a staff? Where the two or so feet of handle extending past his hand is just extra weight and since he's not using it, it might as well not be there.
Uh, I would describe it as a MOVIE, having literally nothing to do with DnD.
Dpg: I would perceive it as an attempt by the player to alway have a weapon in hand.
So? Its no big deal.
Most mage classes always have their 'weapon' in hand as well, sotospeak.
Besides, choosing to always carry a weapon, requires putting it away if needing free hands, which requires a minor action or else dropping it to the ground where it becomes unattended thus vulnerable to theft or sunder. If its a two-handed weapon like a greatclub, then the other hand must always be free. No shields, etc.
Lugging a weapon is no big deal.
PS: For a Cleric, a two-handed weapon can be a high cost. Note, if the Cleric uses a pain-cane in the form of a greatclub, the character CANT hold a religious symbol in one hand and wield a weapon in the other hand.
EvB: a cane that's a quarterstaff.
A (reallife) quarterstaff is at least 6 feet long!
Likewise, relative to the many other weapons, the PH illustration shows a quarterstaff about 6 ft.
You cant call a quarterstaff a 'cane'. Totally different lengths.
Tectorman: How would you describe Gandalf in Return of the King? He has a sword in one hand and his staff in the other and he is attacking with both of those.
If a character wants a Gish Wizard like Gandalf who can TWF with both a staff and a sword, the 'one-handed' aspect could be a magical property of the magic staff itself. Maybe call this magic item a 'Shielding Staff'. This magic 'Shielding Staff' in the offhand seems very useful for a Gish Constitution-key Wizard that chooses the defensive Staff Mastery.
A (reallife) quarterstaff is at least 6 feet long!
Likewise, relative to the many other weapons, the PH illustration shows a quarterstaff about 6 ft.
You cant call a quarterstaff a 'cane'. Totally different lengths.
In this instance you can... the DM is allowing him to. That's the topic. The player wants a greatclub that is cosmetically a cane, but the DM told him he could only have a quarterstaff that is cosmetically a cane.
EvB: A quarterstaff that is cosmetically a cane.
Except it isnt possible.
If a character wants a Gish Wizard like Gandalf who can TWF with both a staff and a sword, the 'one-handed' aspect could be a magical property of the magic staff itself. Maybe call this magic item a 'Shielding Staff'. This magic 'Shielding Staff' in the offhand seems very useful for a Gish Constitution-key Wizard that chooses the defensive Staff Mastery.
No, I'm not talking about a Gish Wizard. I'm not talking about a Ranger or a Tempest Fighter or a Rogue or any actual build. I'm just talking about the capacity to hold and fight with a six foot long stick in one hand (by whoever). About the unnecessity of creating a whole new item when one already exists.
Oh, and Liquid150, about LotR being a movie? Well, D&D is a game. A fantasy game. Furthermore, we're talking about 4E, where as far as I knew (until I read this thread), people had figured out that flavor does not necessitate mechanics and vice versa.
I mean, let's say I've got a Wizard and I want to draw him wearing a chain shirt. Functionally, I don't want it to do anything different than cloth armor (it weighs the same, it costs the same, it provides as much protection as cloth armor), I just want it to look different. Now, would you be telling me "no, you can't do that" because it cloth armor has the word "cloth" in the name? And if I've got a longsword, I wouldn't ever be allowed to refer to it as a "broadsword", simply because there's something already out there called a "broadsword"?
Except it isnt possible.
Um, yes it is... the DM said he could. I wish some people would actually read before posting...
A greatclub - if its made out of metal - can be the same shape and size as a cane (especially a shillelagh). Basically, a very heavy cane.
But a quarterstaff is far too long - it cant be the same shape and size as a cane. So it cant be a cane.
The Mace will do an average of (1d6-1 or 2.5 HP damage).
The Greatclub will do an average of (2d4-1 or 4 HP damage).
I understand people feel strongly that they must communicate their ideas if they think they're right, but is one and a half points of damage on average worth four pages of posts?
At any rate, unless someone is going to argue that maces and quarterstaves do 1d4 and greatmauls do 3d6; I have to question if this is all worth the trouble.
The DM ought to give in, and the player shouldn't care to begin with. They ought to have come to an agreement easily enough, whichever way it went.
No, I'm not talking about a Gish Wizard. I'm not talking about a Ranger or a Tempest Fighter or a Rogue or any actual build. I'm just talking about the capacity to hold and fight with a six foot long stick in one hand (by whoever). About the unnecessity of creating a whole new item when one already exists.
Oh, and Liquid150, about LotR being a movie? Well, D&D is a game. A fantasy game. Furthermore, we're talking about 4E, where as far as I knew (until I read this thread), people had figured out that flavor does not necessitate mechanics and vice versa.
I mean, let's say I've got a Wizard and I want to draw him wearing a chain shirt. Functionally, I don't want it to do anything different than cloth armor (it weighs the same, it costs the same, it provides as much protection as cloth armor), I just want it to look different. Now, would you be telling me "no, you can't do that" because it cloth armor has the word "cloth" in the name? And if I've got a longsword, I wouldn't ever be allowed to refer to it as a "broadsword", simply because there's something already out there called a "broadsword"?
Those are two different things though...cloth armor that looks like a chain shirt doesn't provide you any bonus, a cane that functions as a great club does...and if all that matters is flavor, why not have a character that walks with a cane and fights with a great club? You get the flavor of having a cane and...you still have a club for fighting stuff.
As a dm, I wouldn't allow this as a starting item either, I'd make it something you'd have to have specially made for your character. I believe one of the older edition books had stats for canes and walking sticks...I don't think they were more then 1d4 or 1d6. A standard one isn't made to be used as a weapon, so starting with something specially made seems unfair.
Winner.
A blunt weapon gains its killing power from one factor and one factor alone. Raw impact. That is gained through weight and the power behind the swing. a 2-3 pound cane will NEVER be as effective a weapon as a 10 point reinforced club designed to be wielded in two hands.
I read through this discussion and was amazed by the amount of crap that was being spouted, but the bolded portion just takes the cake. I'll bet anything that your 10 pound stick will be inferior to my 3 pound stick in terms of utility as a weapon.
HOME Made Rule:
A Walking stick is a walking stick. A greatclub is a greatclub. A modified Walking stick is a player vanity not a stat changer. Any damage bonus you might have gained by going halfway between is lost because you'd loose the ability to handle it as well as a walking stick. we have balance. If the player simply demands more damage then it was really about doing more damage all along. Get a damn greatclub. But if you try to walk with it like a cane you'll just look silly. Oh.. and find a DM you feel you can trust. He is not supposed to be an adversary.
Those are two different things though...cloth armor that looks like a chain shirt doesn't provide you any bonus, a cane that functions as a great club does...and if all that matters is flavor, why not have a character that walks with a cane and fights with a great club? You get the flavor of having a cane and...you still have a club for fighting stuff.
Except that as far as I'm understanding the OP, all he wanted was a greatclub that looks like a walking stick that doesn't provide you any bonus. That part about "You wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick, would you?" I read that as a possible scenario that could exist with this object being allowed, not a special ability that he was going to demand at every applicable opportunity. And the OP even said as much later on.
As it is we discuss much about what certain weapons are like in game according to our campaign. The one we're running right now has a kind of early modern setting, and the fighter's fullblade is a German style executioner's sword. It's only a little longer than a one handed sword but it requires two hands to use properly and it's optimized for reliable decapitation.
I also am working on a ridiculous post-alchemical holocaust setting called Abominable Wasteland in which I will be extremely liberal with reflavorings. Like, if the fighter wants to use an sharpened shovel as an executioner's axe or a wizard wants to flavor scorching burst as fulmination grenades I'm down.
-Drillboss