Ratings[edit]
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
|
| 3d4 damage, lolwut? Does a large become 3d5? Pretty dumb.
|
|
|
Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
|
| It's a greataxe that deals one more point of damage on average. Not worth an entire entry of its own.
|
|
Eiji-kun dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
|
| The stats themselves, while bland, aren't terrible save one thing that bumps this from neutral to dislike: 3d4 is superior to 1d12 when it comes to averages. Not my much (hence dislike, not hate) but yeah, not really that good here.
|
|
|
Foxwarrior opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
|
| It's stronger than a Greatsword, which was the best weapon, and strictly better than the Greataxe. It has no attributes that make it interesting, either.
|
|
|
Quey opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
|
| As mentioned by other in the discussion, this weapon is a better version of others with no drawbacks, nor a real reason for it. It also mentions warrior monks, but it isn't a monk weapon.
|
Damage
Do you realize that this weapon is stronger than the Greatsword, which is already the strongest two-handed martial weapon? Also, d3s are annoying. --Foxwarrior 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why would anyone EVER choose a greataxe over a ono? I could understand if there were some difference in cost... it just seem that this weapon make taking a greataxe reluctant. You should rethink maybe a few aspects of the weapon, to make it an equivalent choice. --Leziad 18:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
