Talk:Great Maul (5e Equipment)

This is both absurdly overpowered and too heavy to be lifted without mechanical or magical assistance. 180lbs is better served launched out of a catapult then held and swung around. Lemiel14n3 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2014 (MST)

I can only imagine that the high cost and weight is supposed to offset 3d6 damage, but then you may as well have giant versions of all the weapons, which is better served by having an optional rule that the DM can decide if he's going to use or not. Marasmusine (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2014 (MST)

Why has this not been deleted? It was obviously made specifically to bypass the balance restrictions of the game's damage system. By adding both more damage than the maximum potential of the game and an extra rider effect, this has become the only weapon ever worth using. It needs brought back into line with the system it was designed to break, or deleted.

Read the Oversized rule, you will get it. Azernath (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2015 (MDT)

The idea is that it's something for Large-sized PCs to use without giving them double-damage-die large weapons (per DMG). While large PCS are currently only in the realm of homebrew, and require careful examination for balance, at least a 3d6 oversized maul is better than a 4d6 large maul. Marasmusine (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2015 (MDT)

That would be pretty reasonable if it wasn't usable by medium-sized creatures.

They have disadvantage on their attack rolls (in the same way a small PC has disadvantage with Heavy weapons). Isn't that fair? Marasmusine (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2015 (MDT)

That would be fair too if it were true but all they need is a Str of 19 (Or higher) to use it without disadvantage. Considering the weapon isn't finessable, I think the character being Str-based is pretty much certain anyway. The logically built character with this weapon will simply do more damage than everyone else with an extra rider on a crit and do so without any form of opportunity cost whatsoever. It cannot be superior to other weapons and still be balanced without giving it an actual opportunity cost. Removing the 19 Str clause would do so, as would moving the ability requirement to a less certain attribute (Like con perhaps) but as it stands it is additional power without cost and impossible to consider balanced.

I just thought of an easier way to express my concerns regarding the balance of this weapon. For over-sized weapons to be balanced, they should simply be to a medium creature what a heavy weapon is to a small creature but that isn't the case. A small race using a Heavy weapon does so with disadvantage in order to gain a 27.27% increase in the dice value of the weapon (2D6 vs 1d10). The medium race using the oversized weapon does so without disadvantage and gains a 50% increase in the dice value of the weapon (3D6 vs 2D6). The oversized weapon not only removes the costs but also increases the benefits - it cannot be considered on par with what we have in the game while being better in both relative damage and accuracy, than the established norm of the related rules (While getting a free knockdown on crit to boot!).

I've already changed it to Str 21, which puts it out of reach of players unless they have magical help. I too would prefer it if it wasn't there at all, it's just a holdover from earlier revisions of some of these weapons. I also don't like the "X on a critical", these would be a result of training rather than inherent to the weapon. I'm in the process of converting some of the oversized weapons to a "versatile" type deal, with reduced damage for Medium users (or Large users in one hand), with the full damage value for Large users wieding in both hands.

I'm dubious that Large PC races will be balanced well at all, but homebrewers are going to want giants and ogres and so forth, I'm hoping that this system will at mitigate the damage (so to speak) Marasmusine (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2015 (MDT)

That is really great! The Str requirement being raised to 21 is a perfect fix and one I hadn't even considered. Good job.