As it stands, there is no reason to use a flail or morningstar. What can be done to change these and other weapons to make them viable against a warhammer or longsword?
The only difference between Flail, Morningstar, Warhammer & Longsword is that the latter two have versatile, which is an ability that I hardly ever see used.
Functionally, I see all 4 weapons as equivalent - it's about the feel for the character and perhaps damage type
Flails and morningstars weren't used very often in warfare as they were difficult to wield, could be more dangerous to the user than the enemy, and gave no advantage over other, far superior, choices that mandated their use.
So at least from a historical perspective, making them less desirable than longswords or warhammers is actually pretty accurate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Okay, I guess I was wrong. I was under the impression I guess that just having the quality made it better, not looking at the quality itself. Thanks for the help, I'm new to D&D
I've seen high/low attacks, where the higher dexterity party member, of shorter stature, used the flail or morningstar against the legs of an opponent, as the
taller, more powerful party member made a frontal attack with a sword to the opponent's upper body and head. Don't see the real benefit of a solitary attack with a
flail or morningstar, so generally, I agree with the consensus.
The coolest/most fun thing I have seen done with a flail was in the form of a magic item. They gave it a similar ability to bugbears long arms feature that allowed the chain to extend to 10ft reach when attacking (it does nothing for attacks of opportunity) it had other abilities but they were pretty vanilla.
The other reason to use flails is because Athrogate is the coolest dwarf out there and he dual wields them to great effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Flail at least has the (admittedly minuscule) advantage of being cheaper (10g) than the other 1d8 bludgeoning martial weapon (warhammer, 15g). Morningstar, on the other hand, costs three times as much (15g), and is twice as heavy (4lbs), as another 1d8 piercing martial weapon (war pick, 5g, 2lbs). So while there is a conceivable reason to get a flail over a warhammer (sure, it's a stretch, but hey, it could happen), there's no reason to get a morningstar over a war pick, other than availability.
On the other hand, if you're never going to attack two-handed, then the warhammer's combat advantage over the flail (versatile) is meaningless, so not only are you saving 5g, but you're also getting a different "skin" to the weapon, which you might prefer. Similarly, if 10g and 2lbs. aren't going to be a problem, you might prefer the look of the morningstar over the war pick, so having the option is nice. I still wish they would've balanced them out a bit more, but hey, no big deal. =)
I generally find the main reason people don't use the under rated weapons is primarily due to lack of support with feats or with magic items. Who's going to take a flail as a weapon, if you're more likely to run into a magic sword? Why take a pike as a fighter, when you could get a glaive or halberd and get more mileage out of Polearm Mastery?
The only real difference between weapons I can see is that sometimes its a bit cheaper to get a flail or pike in early game, then upgrade, but everyone should have enough gold to start with any weapon, basic armor and any other equipment they want as level 1 characters (barring terrible rolls for gold).
I really don't think a "historic perspective" is really the most important one in a game about Wizard and Paladins fighting Dragons in Dungeons. If you were going to talk about "historic perspective" longswords are rarely never wielded one handed (way more control with 2 hands), no one duel wields rapiers, and a longsword would have a different damage type based on how you hold it. As the first half of the blade was blunt, so the warrior could grab it and stab into the joints of armor. The game isn't really concerned with historically accuracy and never has been.
The weapons are build around game balance. Game balance wise a lot of weapons are just lack luster and a waste of game design space. That's easy to fix in Homebrew, but I argue it shouldn't have to be fixed in homebrew.
What reason was the Pike not equal to the glaive or halberd because it was left out of Polearm Mastery? Why is the Trident a spear that requires Martial Weapons? Why is the net always terrible?
Properties like Versatile and Finesse not meaningless. They are only meaningless if you don't USE them. A Str 20 fighter can use a Rapier. He's not taking advantage of the Finesse property, but that doesn't mean it's not still there.
Properties like Versatile and Finesse not meaningless. They are only meaningless if you don't USE them. A Str 20 fighter can use a Rapier. He's not taking advantage of the Finesse property, but that doesn't mean it's not still there.
For whatever reason I am now picturing a hulking barbarian wielding a rapier. It is a rather funny picture in my head.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Bonus points if the barbarian gets the parrying dagger and a musketeer vest.
HAVE AT THEE KNAVE!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
It would be cool if they had some other advantage or reason to pick them, but not having Versatile isnt going to be a problem in most encounters.
You could homebrew advantages for this I guess, maybe say that a morningstar has a chance to stun on crit, or give them some other cool effect if you really want to see them used a little more often.
For whatever reason I am now picturing a hulking barbarian wielding a rapier. It is a rather funny picture in my head.
Now imagine that Barbarian taking a level of Rogue for Expertice in Athletics and dealing Sneak Attack Damage each time he pokes someone who is grappled and held prone or thanks to his Reckless Attack... I am currently playing this character.
Although I did opt to use whips and short swords over the rapier. Mechanically weaker, but the little Damage in exchange for style is fine by me.
As it stands, there is no reason to use a flail or morningstar. What can be done to change these and other weapons to make them viable against a warhammer or longsword?
The only difference between Flail, Morningstar, Warhammer & Longsword is that the latter two have versatile, which is an ability that I hardly ever see used.
Functionally, I see all 4 weapons as equivalent - it's about the feel for the character and perhaps damage type
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Flails and morningstars weren't used very often in warfare as they were difficult to wield, could be more dangerous to the user than the enemy, and gave no advantage over other, far superior, choices that mandated their use.
So at least from a historical perspective, making them less desirable than longswords or warhammers is actually pretty accurate.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
I understand that, it is a good point. However, there if you are trying to optimize a character, there is no real choice.
I'm not sure why you believe there's no choice? Versatile really isn't that great.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Okay, I guess I was wrong. I was under the impression I guess that just having the quality made it better, not looking at the quality itself. Thanks for the help, I'm new to D&D
I've seen high/low attacks, where the higher dexterity party member, of shorter stature, used the flail or morningstar against the legs of an opponent, as the
taller, more powerful party member made a frontal attack with a sword to the opponent's upper body and head. Don't see the real benefit of a solitary attack with a
flail or morningstar, so generally, I agree with the consensus.
But consider this: flails are very cool
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
The coolest/most fun thing I have seen done with a flail was in the form of a magic item. They gave it a similar ability to bugbears long arms feature that allowed the chain to extend to 10ft reach when attacking (it does nothing for attacks of opportunity) it had other abilities but they were pretty vanilla.
The other reason to use flails is because Athrogate is the coolest dwarf out there and he dual wields them to great effect.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Flail at least has the (admittedly minuscule) advantage of being cheaper (10g) than the other 1d8 bludgeoning martial weapon (warhammer, 15g). Morningstar, on the other hand, costs three times as much (15g), and is twice as heavy (4lbs), as another 1d8 piercing martial weapon (war pick, 5g, 2lbs). So while there is a conceivable reason to get a flail over a warhammer (sure, it's a stretch, but hey, it could happen), there's no reason to get a morningstar over a war pick, other than availability.
On the other hand, if you're never going to attack two-handed, then the warhammer's combat advantage over the flail (versatile) is meaningless, so not only are you saving 5g, but you're also getting a different "skin" to the weapon, which you might prefer. Similarly, if 10g and 2lbs. aren't going to be a problem, you might prefer the look of the morningstar over the war pick, so having the option is nice. I still wish they would've balanced them out a bit more, but hey, no big deal. =)
I generally find the main reason people don't use the under rated weapons is primarily due to lack of support with feats or with magic items. Who's going to take a flail as a weapon, if you're more likely to run into a magic sword? Why take a pike as a fighter, when you could get a glaive or halberd and get more mileage out of Polearm Mastery?
The only real difference between weapons I can see is that sometimes its a bit cheaper to get a flail or pike in early game, then upgrade, but everyone should have enough gold to start with any weapon, basic armor and any other equipment they want as level 1 characters (barring terrible rolls for gold).
I really don't think a "historic perspective" is really the most important one in a game about Wizard and Paladins fighting Dragons in Dungeons.
If you were going to talk about "historic perspective" longswords are rarely never wielded one handed (way more control with 2 hands), no one duel wields rapiers, and a longsword would have a different damage type based on how you hold it. As the first half of the blade was blunt, so the warrior could grab it and stab into the joints of armor. The game isn't really concerned with historically accuracy and never has been.
The weapons are build around game balance.
Game balance wise a lot of weapons are just lack luster and a waste of game design space.
That's easy to fix in Homebrew, but I argue it shouldn't have to be fixed in homebrew.
What reason was the Pike not equal to the glaive or halberd because it was left out of Polearm Mastery?
Why is the Trident a spear that requires Martial Weapons?
Why is the net always terrible?
Properties like Versatile and Finesse not meaningless. They are only meaningless if you don't USE them.
A Str 20 fighter can use a Rapier. He's not taking advantage of the Finesse property, but that doesn't mean it's not still there.
For whatever reason I am now picturing a hulking barbarian wielding a rapier. It is a rather funny picture in my head.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Bonus points if the barbarian gets the parrying dagger and a musketeer vest.
HAVE AT THEE KNAVE!
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
It would be cool if they had some other advantage or reason to pick them, but not having Versatile isnt going to be a problem in most encounters.
You could homebrew advantages for this I guess, maybe say that a morningstar has a chance to stun on crit, or give them some other cool effect if you really want to see them used a little more often.
Now imagine that Barbarian taking a level of Rogue for Expertice in Athletics and dealing Sneak Attack Damage each time he pokes someone who is grappled and held prone or thanks to his Reckless Attack... I am currently playing this character.
Although I did opt to use whips and short swords over the rapier. Mechanically weaker, but the little Damage in exchange for style is fine by me.
Extended Signature
On the OP. Playing a paladin with Dueling fighting style, means a damage loss when using your versatile weapon two handed.
The morning star gives you a more harsh and cruel appearance.
Extended Signature
Style points do indeed count for something.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You just described Porthos...seriously