I was looking for the two different damage types, one weapon for bludgeoning and one for piercing.
As WolfOfTheBees mentioned, damage type is almost irrelevant this edition. The only things it really matters for are skeletons, some oozes like the black pudding and ochre jelly, & awakened trees and animated trees. For most of those cases, the difference between piercing and bludgeoning is nonexistent, they only care about slashing damage.
By far, you’re much more likely to end up finding creatures that are resistant to non-magical attacks of all 3 physical types. Having two weapons means needing two different magic weapons or one being irrelevant anyway.
A warhammer is listed as 2lbs, 1d8 or 1d10 versatile bludgeoning.
A morningstar is listed as 4lbs 1d8 piercing.
Is there any reason that I couldn’t make the argument to the DM that the Morningstar should also be allowed the versatile label?
Various images i have seen show some very long handles on Morningstars.
My Goliath Rune Knight was a prison warden and always carried a “non-lethal” blunt weapon and a “lethal” spiked weapon. thanks!!
That last sentence sounds like a valid reason to me, especially if your DM rules that only certain damage types can be non-lethal.
I don't think that making Morningstar versatile is going to break anything. But I also don't think that 1d8 vs 1d10 on a "sometimes-weapon" is really worth making a fuss over. So I could go either way here.
A warhammer is listed as 2lbs, 1d8 or 1d10 versatile bludgeoning.
A morningstar is listed as 4lbs 1d8 piercing.
Is there any reason that I couldn’t make the argument to the DM that the Morningstar should also be allowed the versatile label?
Various images i have seen show some very long handles on Morningstars.
My Goliath Rune Knight was a prison warden and always carried a “non-lethal” blunt weapon and a “lethal” spiked weapon.
thanks!!
Is there any reason you couldn't call your warhammer a morning star? flavor is free.
I was looking for the two different damage types, one weapon for bludgeoning and one for piercing.
There are relatively few monsters that are resistant to one and not the other. A few undead, maybe.
As WolfOfTheBees mentioned, damage type is almost irrelevant this edition. The only things it really matters for are skeletons, some oozes like the black pudding and ochre jelly, & awakened trees and animated trees. For most of those cases, the difference between piercing and bludgeoning is nonexistent, they only care about slashing damage.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
By far, you’re much more likely to end up finding creatures that are resistant to non-magical attacks of all 3 physical types. Having two weapons means needing two different magic weapons or one being irrelevant anyway.
That last sentence sounds like a valid reason to me, especially if your DM rules that only certain damage types can be non-lethal.
I don't think that making Morningstar versatile is going to break anything. But I also don't think that 1d8 vs 1d10 on a "sometimes-weapon" is really worth making a fuss over. So I could go either way here.
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
That’s a valid point. How often is that one point of average damage going to make the difference? Maybe 10% of the time?