So the CR adventure Call of the Netherdeep brought the Scholarly Excavator monster stat. This humanoid spellcaster has a weapon called a Thunderous Warhammer. Thunderous Warhammer. Melee Weapon Attack:+4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (1d10 + 2) thunder damage. If a party kills one, does the item drop? Because holy moly, talking about an op weapon for a party...
It's not a normal warhammer. Firstly, it does thunder rather than bludgeoning - meaning that it bypasses the most common low level resistances and immunities. It's also more powerful - according to the OP it uses d10 rather than a d8 which is standard for warhammers. That pushes theaverage damage up by 1.
In terms of average output, it is equivalent to a +1 magic weapon. It is slightly weaker in that a creature is more likely to be resistant to thunder damage than magic bludgeoning, but it's stronger in that it's more likely to be vulnerable to it as well. I'm unsure of the comparative frequencies to be able to tell which way it pushes the scales.
I'd consider it a +1 weapon. If you're happy with the party having access to +1 weapons on the frequency that you come across these weapons then sure, let them. If you feel that it will break the game (perhaps they're level 1 or something or you're worried about them selling them, etc), then have them be enchanted so they dissolve if their owner dies or something
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's not a normal warhammer. Firstly, it does thunder rather than bludgeoning - meaning that it bypasses the most common low level resistances and immunities. It's also more powerful - according to the OP it uses d10 rather than a d8 which is standard for warhammers.
Warhammers are versatile -- d10 when swung two-handed, and the stat block doesn't indicate it uses a shield
Thunder damage is the only thing special about the weapon
EDIT: and now that I think about it, a DM could just as easily decide doing thunder damage is an ability the Excavator has, rather than being a property of the weapon. It doesn't have to be a magical warhammer at all
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah this one's fine, but I would be careful setting the expectation that enemy and PC weapons are interchangeable. A lot of higher enemies have weapons that deal 3dx or 4dx damage because they need to deal a certain amount of damage to be a threat. Those weapons are not balanced to be used by PCs.
While I agree it's not balanced, and that weapons like the Mariliths' aren't magical, as she has it in the description. This weapon is used by a normal humanoid. It does thunder damage. When you look at the drawing of the creature it wields the weapon in one hand and a spellbook in the other, there is no damage given for wielding it with one hand or two hands. I don't agree with the trend one rule for players one for monsters. I use it when there is no other choice, but in this case it seems like the creator of the module didn't think this far ahead. This should never have been released in this state.
While I agree it's not balanced, and that weapons like the Mariliths' aren't magical, as she has it in the description. This weapon is used by a normal humanoid. It does thunder damage. When you look at the drawing of the creature it wields the weapon in one hand and a spellbook in the other, there is no damage given for wielding it with one hand or two hands. I don't agree with the trend one rule for players one for monsters. I use it when there is no other choice, but in this case it seems like the creator of the module didn't think this far ahead. This should never have been released in this state.
It should be noted that the DMG's section on creating monsters implies that it's RAW that the creature's weapons drop (and, by extension, work the exact same way as they do in the statblock, sans external properties added to the weapon (the orc war chief's "Gruumsh's Fury" trait for example) or the creature's specific ability scores).
I think it's a bit of an overreaction to say that this should've never been released in this state. A SINGLE point bump in damage? Meh. Different damage type? Meh. If a small-sized PC picked this up from a medium excavator instead of a small excavator they'd have disadvantage. So around what, a 3rd of the races might not even be able to use this without dis?
Through a simple ctrl + f I've determined to the best of my ability that the first mention of this statblock is all the way in chapter 4. Now, I'm unsure of how linear this adventure is, but if this stablock is such a deepcut I don't think it will be much of an issue in the first place anyway. PRESUMING how linear this adventure is, if it's that far then by the time you meet an NPC with this statblock you've likely already found a magic weapon by that point. Which would bypass the most popular resistances.
While I agree it's not balanced, and that weapons like the Mariliths' aren't magical, as she has it in the description. This weapon is used by a normal humanoid. It does thunder damage. When you look at the drawing of the creature it wields the weapon in one hand and a spellbook in the other, there is no damage given for wielding it with one hand or two hands. I don't agree with the trend one rule for players one for monsters. I use it when there is no other choice, but in this case it seems like the creator of the module didn't think this far ahead. This should never have been released in this state.
It should be noted that the DMG's section on creating monsters implies that it's RAW that the creature's weapons drop (and, by extension, work the exact same way as they do in the statblock, sans external properties added to the weapon (the orc war chief's "Gruumsh's Fury" trait for example) or the creature's specific ability scores).
I think it's a bit of an overreaction to say that this should've never been released in this state. A SINGLE point bump in damage? Meh. Different damage type? Meh. If a small-sized PC picked this up from a medium excavator instead of a small excavator they'd have disadvantage. So around what, a 3rd of the races might not even be able to use this without dis?
Through a simple ctrl + f I've determined to the best of my ability that the first mention of this statblock is all the way in chapter 4. Now, I'm unsure of how linear this adventure is, but if this stablock is such a deepcut I don't think it will be much of an issue in the first place anyway. PRESUMING how linear this adventure is, if it's that far then by the time you meet an NPC with this statblock you've likely already found a magic weapon by that point. Which would bypass the most popular resistances.
My biggest gripe with this statblock is that it doesn't follow the rules. Content creators, published by WoTC need to follow the same rules as everybody else. Otherwise, we are getting on a road to nowhere, fast. Your reasoning of where you encounter them is also a bit weird, as this would mean the critters can't be used in any other module. Giving everything CR created a doubtful place in the overall DnD settings. Where WoTC is pushing for more and more setting agnostic things, a critter like this with only a CR3(!!!) is then blocked to be used in any other setting without a DM correcting the errors and thus spending time not needed when they have easy to use statblocks instead. Something I've been told only stupid DM's do, and superior ones just go with the flow and the statblock as published.
There is a difference between a monster's weapon and the attack action and the effects it does with it. While the weapon may be dropped upon death, it is not automatic that another creature picking it up will do the same with it.
It's at most a +1 damage (possibly a standard weapon, depending on whether the person holding it is ruled to be capable of holding something else or is holding 2-handed, but at most it's +1 damage), which is Uncommon for items, meaning that it's intended for L1-4. Except that it doesn't have +1 to hit, so it's not even a +1 weapon in that regard. Interestingly, it change damage type, but I don't think resistance to bludgeoning occurs much in Tier 1 so might be irrelevant anyway. If not, it's mostly irrelevant.
A CR3 is intended to be fought at around L3. I think that's not an unreasonable time frame for a +1 weapon, and if anything might be subpar (an actual +1 weapon would be better, which is aimed for that kind of time). Even if a PC gains it earlier...that's not a massive deal. By the time they're reaching Tier 2 and that damage type swap may matter...they'd be looking at getting a magic weapon anyway, rendering it subpar (because they'dbe in the level range for a rare magic item, which is +2 and leaves it way behind except when fighting creatures with a weakness to thunder damage).
I don't see an issue with this creature dropping the sword. Just be aware that it's not as good as +1 weapon, so you may want to consider that before thinking of it as "their" weapon drop for the tier.
My biggest concern would be of they sold t, especially if they obtained several. A +1 weapon is apparently about 300gp, which is an awful lot for a Tier 1 character - multiple quests worth of rewards. If the party gets one each? Gold will become superfluous much more quickly. I'm not sure that the game accounts for players looting every weapon and selling it though. You could also rule that the 1d10 assumes two handed and therefore it's just a damage swapped warhammer - and it would be worth only slightly more than a normal warhammer, so 15gp+premium.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There is a difference between a monster's weapon and the attack action and the effects it does with it. While the weapon may be dropped upon death, it is not automatic that another creature picking it up will do the same with it.
The weapon description makes it clear the damage is not physical, but Thunder. The humanoid has no special ability or description in the statblock to explain it, so it does and will always do base thunder damage.
It's at most a +1 damage (possibly a standard weapon, depending on whether the person holding it is ruled to be capable of holding something else or is holding 2-handed, but at most it's +1 damage), which is Uncommon for items, meaning that it's intended for L1-4. Except that it doesn't have +1 to hit, so it's not even a +1 weapon in that regard. Interestingly, it change damage type, but I don't think resistance to bludgeoning occurs much in Tier 1 so might be irrelevant anyway. If not, it's mostly irrelevant.
A CR3 is intended to be fought at around L3. I think that's not an unreasonable time frame for a +1 weapon, and if anything might be subpar (an actual +1 weapon would be better, which is aimed for that kind of time). Even if a PC gains it earlier...that's not a massive deal. By the time they're reaching Tier 2 and that damage type swap may matter...they'd be looking at getting a magic weapon anyway, rendering it subpar (because they'dbe in the level range for a rare magic item, which is +2 and leaves it way behind except when fighting creatures with a weakness to thunder damage).
I don't see an issue with this creature dropping the sword. Just be aware that it's not as good as +1 weapon, so you may want to consider that before thinking of it as "their" weapon drop for the tier.
My biggest concern would be of they sold t, especially if they obtained several. A +1 weapon is apparently about 300gp, which is an awful lot for a Tier 1 character - multiple quests worth of rewards. If the party gets one each? Gold will become superfluous much more quickly. I'm not sure that the game accounts for players looting every weapon and selling it though. You could also rule that the 1d10 assumes two handed and therefore it's just a damage swapped warhammer - and it would be worth only slightly more than a normal warhammer, so 15gp+premium.
It is better than a +1 sword. The damage type makes it better, and the ability to dual wield it makes it better. It's a d10 weapon. Not even touching the bad description, ignoring that a Warhammer is versatile. So going by the statblock it's a d10/d12 or a d10/2d6 weapon. Or it's a d8/d10 weapon and the statblock is badly made. If it's the latter, the caster can't use its spell casting ability because two-handed weapon. It's a badly constructed statblock.
The weapon description makes it clear the damage is not physical, but Thunder. The humanoid has no special ability or description in the statblock to explain it
Neither does the weapon. All you know from the statblock is that this creature, wielding this weapon, does thunder damage
Draw whatever conclusions you want from that as a DM. At my table, the Excavator would be wielding a completely normal warhammer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The damage type makes it better, and the ability to dual wield it makes it better. It's a d10 weapon. Not even touching the bad description, ignoring that a Warhammer is versatile. So going by the statblock it's a d10/d12 or a d10/2d6 weapon
None of that is in the statblock either, but you just made it up anyway
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The damage type makes it better, and the ability to dual wield it makes it better. It's a d10 weapon. Not even touching the bad description, ignoring that a Warhammer is versatile. So going by the statblock it's a d10/d12 or a d10/2d6 weapon
None of that is in the statblock either, but you just made it up anyway
In addition, it's a warhammer. A warhammer does d10/d8. If the statblock states otherwise, then we go with that. Otherwise, it's a warhammer and warhammers do d10/d8. There is scope for saying that it's got a magical ability that you can get the d10 while holding it one-handed, but I really think the case for it being the one handed damage and it's really a d12/2d6 is stretching things. I'd assume that the wielder is using the weapon for its maximum damage as standard.
With that in mind, it's not better than a +1 warhammer (possibly a miswording on my part that escaped my notice) either. A +1 sword also does +1 to hit that SE doesn't (which increases average damage for every encounter due to a higher hit rate), but also bypasses resistance and immunity to bludgeoning attacks. Thunder also does that, but if something is resistant or immune to thunder damage, SE would be affected, but the +1 warhammer wouldn't. The only time it would be advantageous to have the SE instead would be if the creature is weak to thunder damage - I'm sure such creatures exist, but it's pretty rare to (my memory) in the CR1-4 range that would be pertinent.
In every other scenario, the +1 is better due to the increase in hit rate. Actually, there is one exception - if you're in desperate need to get 10 base damage (ie before applying your Str Mod but after your die roll and adding values inherent to the weapon) or you'll die the next round, you get a 10% chance with SE, but not with a +1 warhammer held one handed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A spellbook isn't an arcane focus unless the monster stats specifically say so. And if not, then there's no reason the monster needs to hold its spellbook during combat -- the art probably shows it holding the book simply to indicate it's a Wizard. (I still haven't seen this monster or its art.) Anyway, you can certainly cast spells that don't require objects while you're holding a two handed weapon, and then use your two handed weapon. That's always been allowed. The only thing that might be messed up here is if the spell list has a bunch of combat spells that have material components and it doesn't use its weapon as an arcane focus.
There is a difference between a monster's weapon and the attack action and the effects it does with it. While the weapon may be dropped upon death, it is not automatic that another creature picking it up will do the same with it.
You should be careful with this. It's an explanation that technically works, but feels really bad. Make sure you're describing how the monster is using its own powers rather than the weapon's.
Yeah this one's fine, but I would be careful setting the expectation that enemy and PC weapons are interchangeable. A lot of higher enemies have weapons that deal 3dx or 4dx damage because they need to deal a certain amount of damage to be a threat. Those weapons are not balanced to be used by PCs.
You'll see monsters that use manufactured weapons such as swords, that have extra fire damage, extra necrotic damage, and so on. You'll see monsters who have something like Sneak Attack or Rage that adds damage to their attacks. You won't ever see a monster whose longsword deals a different amount of slashing damage than a longsword deals, unless they're large or huge or gargantuan. Just like you'll never see a monster whose studded leather armor gives a different AC than studded leather armor gives, but they might have a shield.
I try to stay away from these high-CR humanoids with magic-but-not-magic weapons, because it sucks to get stabbed with a magic sword and then be told the magic sword isn't actually magic at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the CR adventure Call of the Netherdeep brought the Scholarly Excavator monster stat. This humanoid spellcaster has a weapon called a Thunderous Warhammer. Thunderous Warhammer. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (1d10 + 2) thunder damage. If a party kills one, does the item drop? Because holy moly, talking about an op weapon for a party...
Sounds like a normal warhammer with a flavor name attached?
The to hit looks like str+prof, damage is if you're 2h a warhammer 1d10+str.
Looks like a +2 str mod and a +2 prof mod for it. Nothing special about it.
The only difference is that it does thunder damage instead of bludgeoning damage.
You should definitely have it drop the weapon if it makes sense that it might. Players love that.
It's not a normal warhammer. Firstly, it does thunder rather than bludgeoning - meaning that it bypasses the most common low level resistances and immunities. It's also more powerful - according to the OP it uses d10 rather than a d8 which is standard for warhammers. That pushes theaverage damage up by 1.
In terms of average output, it is equivalent to a +1 magic weapon. It is slightly weaker in that a creature is more likely to be resistant to thunder damage than magic bludgeoning, but it's stronger in that it's more likely to be vulnerable to it as well. I'm unsure of the comparative frequencies to be able to tell which way it pushes the scales.
I'd consider it a +1 weapon. If you're happy with the party having access to +1 weapons on the frequency that you come across these weapons then sure, let them. If you feel that it will break the game (perhaps they're level 1 or something or you're worried about them selling them, etc), then have them be enchanted so they dissolve if their owner dies or something
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Generally, no.
Monsters use different rules than PCs. The damage a monster does is part of its CR calculation, not its gear.
If you want the party to have the warhammer then treat it as treasure, exactly the way you would treat any magic and/or expensive item.
Warhammers are versatile -- d10 when swung two-handed, and the stat block doesn't indicate it uses a shield
Thunder damage is the only thing special about the weapon
EDIT: and now that I think about it, a DM could just as easily decide doing thunder damage is an ability the Excavator has, rather than being a property of the weapon. It doesn't have to be a magical warhammer at all
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah this one's fine, but I would be careful setting the expectation that enemy and PC weapons are interchangeable. A lot of higher enemies have weapons that deal 3dx or 4dx damage because they need to deal a certain amount of damage to be a threat. Those weapons are not balanced to be used by PCs.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Let it drop, that shit is awesome.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU









While I agree it's not balanced, and that weapons like the Mariliths' aren't magical, as she has it in the description. This weapon is used by a normal humanoid. It does thunder damage. When you look at the drawing of the creature it wields the weapon in one hand and a spellbook in the other, there is no damage given for wielding it with one hand or two hands. I don't agree with the trend one rule for players one for monsters. I use it when there is no other choice, but in this case it seems like the creator of the module didn't think this far ahead. This should never have been released in this state.
It should be noted that the DMG's section on creating monsters implies that it's RAW that the creature's weapons drop (and, by extension, work the exact same way as they do in the statblock, sans external properties added to the weapon (the orc war chief's "Gruumsh's Fury" trait for example) or the creature's specific ability scores).
I think it's a bit of an overreaction to say that this should've never been released in this state. A SINGLE point bump in damage? Meh. Different damage type? Meh. If a small-sized PC picked this up from a medium excavator instead of a small excavator they'd have disadvantage. So around what, a 3rd of the races might not even be able to use this without dis?
Through a simple ctrl + f I've determined to the best of my ability that the first mention of this statblock is all the way in chapter 4. Now, I'm unsure of how linear this adventure is, but if this stablock is such a deepcut I don't think it will be much of an issue in the first place anyway. PRESUMING how linear this adventure is, if it's that far then by the time you meet an NPC with this statblock you've likely already found a magic weapon by that point. Which would bypass the most popular resistances.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU









My biggest gripe with this statblock is that it doesn't follow the rules. Content creators, published by WoTC need to follow the same rules as everybody else. Otherwise, we are getting on a road to nowhere, fast. Your reasoning of where you encounter them is also a bit weird, as this would mean the critters can't be used in any other module. Giving everything CR created a doubtful place in the overall DnD settings. Where WoTC is pushing for more and more setting agnostic things, a critter like this with only a CR3(!!!) is then blocked to be used in any other setting without a DM correcting the errors and thus spending time not needed when they have easy to use statblocks instead. Something I've been told only stupid DM's do, and superior ones just go with the flow and the statblock as published.
There is a difference between a monster's weapon and the attack action and the effects it does with it. While the weapon may be dropped upon death, it is not automatic that another creature picking it up will do the same with it.
It's at most a +1 damage (possibly a standard weapon, depending on whether the person holding it is ruled to be capable of holding something else or is holding 2-handed, but at most it's +1 damage), which is Uncommon for items, meaning that it's intended for L1-4. Except that it doesn't have +1 to hit, so it's not even a +1 weapon in that regard. Interestingly, it change damage type, but I don't think resistance to bludgeoning occurs much in Tier 1 so might be irrelevant anyway. If not, it's mostly irrelevant.
A CR3 is intended to be fought at around L3. I think that's not an unreasonable time frame for a +1 weapon, and if anything might be subpar (an actual +1 weapon would be better, which is aimed for that kind of time). Even if a PC gains it earlier...that's not a massive deal. By the time they're reaching Tier 2 and that damage type swap may matter...they'd be looking at getting a magic weapon anyway, rendering it subpar (because they'dbe in the level range for a rare magic item, which is +2 and leaves it way behind except when fighting creatures with a weakness to thunder damage).
I don't see an issue with this creature dropping the sword. Just be aware that it's not as good as +1 weapon, so you may want to consider that before thinking of it as "their" weapon drop for the tier.
My biggest concern would be of they sold t, especially if they obtained several. A +1 weapon is apparently about 300gp, which is an awful lot for a Tier 1 character - multiple quests worth of rewards. If the party gets one each? Gold will become superfluous much more quickly. I'm not sure that the game accounts for players looting every weapon and selling it though. You could also rule that the 1d10 assumes two handed and therefore it's just a damage swapped warhammer - and it would be worth only slightly more than a normal warhammer, so 15gp+premium.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The weapon description makes it clear the damage is not physical, but Thunder. The humanoid has no special ability or description in the statblock to explain it, so it does and will always do base thunder damage.
It is better than a +1 sword. The damage type makes it better, and the ability to dual wield it makes it better. It's a d10 weapon. Not even touching the bad description, ignoring that a Warhammer is versatile. So going by the statblock it's a d10/d12 or a d10/2d6 weapon. Or it's a d8/d10 weapon and the statblock is badly made. If it's the latter, the caster can't use its spell casting ability because two-handed weapon. It's a badly constructed statblock.
Neither does the weapon. All you know from the statblock is that this creature, wielding this weapon, does thunder damage
Draw whatever conclusions you want from that as a DM. At my table, the Excavator would be wielding a completely normal warhammer
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
None of that is in the statblock either, but you just made it up anyway
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In addition, it's a warhammer. A warhammer does d10/d8. If the statblock states otherwise, then we go with that. Otherwise, it's a warhammer and warhammers do d10/d8. There is scope for saying that it's got a magical ability that you can get the d10 while holding it one-handed, but I really think the case for it being the one handed damage and it's really a d12/2d6 is stretching things. I'd assume that the wielder is using the weapon for its maximum damage as standard.
With that in mind, it's not better than a +1 warhammer (possibly a miswording on my part that escaped my notice) either. A +1 sword also does +1 to hit that SE doesn't (which increases average damage for every encounter due to a higher hit rate), but also bypasses resistance and immunity to bludgeoning attacks. Thunder also does that, but if something is resistant or immune to thunder damage, SE would be affected, but the +1 warhammer wouldn't. The only time it would be advantageous to have the SE instead would be if the creature is weak to thunder damage - I'm sure such creatures exist, but it's pretty rare to (my memory) in the CR1-4 range that would be pertinent.
In every other scenario, the +1 is better due to the increase in hit rate. Actually, there is one exception - if you're in desperate need to get 10 base damage (ie before applying your Str Mod but after your die roll and adding values inherent to the weapon) or you'll die the next round, you get a 10% chance with SE, but not with a +1 warhammer held one handed.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A spellbook isn't an arcane focus unless the monster stats specifically say so. And if not, then there's no reason the monster needs to hold its spellbook during combat -- the art probably shows it holding the book simply to indicate it's a Wizard. (I still haven't seen this monster or its art.) Anyway, you can certainly cast spells that don't require objects while you're holding a two handed weapon, and then use your two handed weapon. That's always been allowed. The only thing that might be messed up here is if the spell list has a bunch of combat spells that have material components and it doesn't use its weapon as an arcane focus.
You should be careful with this. It's an explanation that technically works, but feels really bad. Make sure you're describing how the monster is using its own powers rather than the weapon's.
You'll see monsters that use manufactured weapons such as swords, that have extra fire damage, extra necrotic damage, and so on. You'll see monsters who have something like Sneak Attack or Rage that adds damage to their attacks. You won't ever see a monster whose longsword deals a different amount of slashing damage than a longsword deals, unless they're large or huge or gargantuan. Just like you'll never see a monster whose studded leather armor gives a different AC than studded leather armor gives, but they might have a shield.
I try to stay away from these high-CR humanoids with magic-but-not-magic weapons, because it sucks to get stabbed with a magic sword and then be told the magic sword isn't actually magic at all.