Talk:Great Mace (3.5e Equipment)

Ratings

	Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	Getting +1 to +4 on attacks with this weapon makes it hands down better than anything else unless you're stacking crit. Making other things redundant if something is allowed is an incredibly bad design decision.

On Attack Bonuses

For this (and the inevitable dislikes on the other mace equipment in progress) do keep in mind it only bypasses armor bonuses, making it useless against monsters, monks, or the like. Also keep in mind mace stats are inferior to other weapons of their category, largely because of the critical. There really is no reason to grab a mace right now when a falchion or scythe will do. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would still keep this at a dislike despite that, since it makes whether this weapon is effective or not dependent on DM fiat. Also, it supports the "golf-bag of weapons" thingy, which I also don't particularly like, though I don't dislike it too much. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I would call "what monster you fight today" DM fiat. Because that would mean pretty much everything in the game is DM fiat. --Leziad (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Eiji, I would expect maces to be inferior to those other options. Maces are simple weapons, and the others listed are martial. So... working as intended?

On the ignoring armor thing, I'm not too bothered by it but that's going to turn straight into PA damage against armored foes. I don't think I'd scale it with attacks like you have. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's why this is martial and not simple. Mostly, I felt maces were missing, and while the intend was to make some exotic maces (and I did, see the Gigas Mace) I realized the main gimmick I wanted to use with it, the armor busting property, really wasn't worth EWP. It would however be perfect for soldiers actually trained to use a mace. A martial weapon.

The Power Attack thing is noted, and really fitting. So... working as intended indeed. I scaled it because I like scaling things typically, and also because I wasn't sure how much armor I wanted to bust through, so I figured the better you get at fighting, the better you know where to bust through armor. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the "golf bag" of weapons idea is bad, since all spellcasters that aren't hyper-focused basically have "golf bags" of spells for different situations. Just because most fighters have to specialize with 1-2 specific weapon types to remain remotely effective as game levels progress doesn't mean that having a few different weapons around somehow ruins the game. Since no one would say that if magic weapons are allowed it makes all other weapons redundant because they can't overcome DR/magic, I can't see the logic in calling a weapon that's more effective against an armor bonus than other weapons "incredibly bad design." Spanambula (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to explain both bits.

1. Golf Bags of Weapons: Right--spellcasters aren't hyper-focused either. But they don't require external things to be versatile. And IMO, fighters shouldn't require em either, instead using basic skills derived from their class and feats (mostly class) in order to be versatile. What is an example of this? Well, a martial adept for example. It doesn't matter if they're wielding a sword, mage, or club, they can still do fire damage (Desert Wind), cold damage (Shadow Hand), a massive strike that deals a ton of damage (Diamond Mind), or multiple attacks that chip away at an enemy (Tiger Claw). This is an innate thing. They should not require to switch weapons to be versatile and to combat different threats, but instead rely on on-the-fly decision-making in battle to decide the outcome, rather than what they had prepared (strategy is better for the game as a deciding factor than logistics). The golf bag turns the attention less to what you do in combat, and more on what you've prepared for the battle, reducing counterplay. This is why it's bad for the game from a system design point of view. That's not to say PHB fighters are great either, but we have examples of how to make characters that have counterplay instead of seeing the encounter, deciding on a weapon that's most effective, and just sticking with that for the entire encounter. There's no counterplay in that. Just logistics, which are for the most part boring.
2. Invalidating Options: Invalidating options is bad because effectively it reduces your options. It makes taking other options equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot if other people are taking advantage of them and you're not, and the DM is planning encounters accordingly. Options allow not only for counterplay, but also to differentiate yourself from other characters. Furthermore, there is a certain amount of posterity that has something to be said for it when concerning core material. If you present a better option, then it should definitely do away completely with the old ones rather than present them as still-viable options to be taken by unsuspecting newbies who shoot themselves in the foot by choosing them. That's why I can't agree with these new, better weapons--they invalidate entire sets of other weapons. If these are introduced, the others should be removed as options entirely rather than simply being a newbie trap.

Hope that explains things a bit. --Ghostwheel (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit to unpack here, and I appreciate the response. Allow me to quibble that spellcasters actually DO use quite a bit of external things to be versatile: wands, scrolls, metamagic rods, extra spellbooks, even Nghtsticks if your DM lets you get away with it. "They should not require to switch weapons to be versatile and to combat different threats" except for when suddenly you have no more melee targets and you still have ranged targets, or any other scenario when you have to switch from one mode of fighting to another. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just find this argument silly. I agree that it's ridiculous to have one of every weapon "just in case," but the idea of a melee attacker having to hack away at skeletons with his scimitar because it would "reduce counterplay" to switch to a bludgeoning weapon is a puzzling one to me. How is deciding "hey my bludgeoning weapon would be more effective than my slashing weapon right now" any different from deciding "Hey my diamond mind maneuver is going to be more effective than my tiger claw maneuver against this dude with DR?" Yes, it involves external items, which involves logistics, but part of strategy is logistics. Bringing potions of fire resistance with you when you storm the keep of the Fire Lord might make things easier, but it's certainly not going to make everything boring. Equipment is just as much a part of the game as innate ability, and though I personally agree that it's more interesting to have more innate abilities to bring to table, not every character is built that way, and it's no reason to hamstring someone who needs/wants gear.

Here's my problem with your invalidating options argument: You can say the exact same thing if one character is using Grimoire versions of feats, or Tome material and the rest aren't. This is an issue that the DM should be deciding and making available to all players. Basically I draw the opposite conclusion: if we make MORE of these weapons, then yeah, we really can do away with other sets of weapons, just like Tome versions of things do away with the core versions. This isn't actually a problem. Spanambula (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)