Forums of the Megaverse®

Howdy everyone!

I have lurked for years and over the last few I have been teaching my sons and their friends how to game. We started with the grand daddy and now I want to introduce them to something a bit different.

One of the kids loves using a Maul, I saw in the rules that it does 2d4 but is not two handed. Is there a 2H maul in the game somewhere I can use?

Thanks I hope the question made sense...fighting a cold and under some good medicine...

Prysus is correct that Weapons & Armor lists the weapon as a 2D6 Damage weapon. I cannot agree that this entirely represents the damage a straight hit with a Maul is capable of, and would instead suggest their damage be more in line with a Claymore (which is 3D6). This is in part because a direct high with the weapon will do far more damage to a shield or through a persons armor, as chain or plate will do little to stop the force from going straight into the target's body to shatter bone (though PF rules don't support such an ideal to work in practical game terms). If you want more realism, I'd have it be 3D6 + 2, half damage ignores the wearers armor on successful hits (i.e roll of a 10, so total of a 12 on a hit deals 6 Damage to their Armor, and 6 damage to the wearer, assuming it did not by pass AR), but -3 to Strike. Or if you want quick and dirty, 3D6 just like a Claymore.

Thanks, I think I will go with the 3d like the claymore right now, that just seems right....

A maul is a hard weapon to wield proficiently. If it was two handed it's probably because it's larger so make it a large sized (normal) maul.

the damage for that would be either 2D4+1D6 or 3D6 (depending on main book or weapons book). but then there are the issue of who can wield large sized weapons. Mauls aren't meant to be two handed (except in every video game) because they are cumbersome to wield.

Mryoto wrote:This is most likely a stupid idea, but a real Maul would hurt really bad. Most likely worse than a normal hammer weapon. But like stated before it is really hard to use, and it is not a quick weapon at all. You could just ramp up the damage a lot, but then have it cost two actions to hit with it. Kind of like a power punch, but a hell of a lot more effective.

As compared to a claymore? Does that require two attacks...I am asking not sniping.

Looking at the Comp of Weapons, Armor & Castles (basically the big compendium that the little regional compendiums were broken up from) the Maul is listed as being 4 kilograms, doing 2d6 sd (opposed to in the PF2 book with it being 2 kg/4 lb., doing 2d4 sd.)

While the Claymore is listed as being 2.9 kg, doing 3d6 sd ( the PF2 book has the same stats).

The besides the claymore being a blade the main difference between the two is where the center of mass (also called the 'center of gravity' or it's 'balance point') of the weapon is located. With the center of mass of the Maul at the end near the "head of the hammer" it is difficult to control. And it is just a big hammer designed to drive stakes into things. Thus very clumsy when trying to hit a moving object. Think of having to do a haymaker swing each and every time to get a full impact,
While a Claymore has it's center of mass closer to it's hilt. Thus it is easier to control. However, the claymore was designed to fend of the attacks from pole arms, so is clumsy when compared to smaller swords meant for single handed use.

Between the two, a maul and the claymore, I would pick the claymore.

If I wanted a blunt hammer type weapon I would pick a war hammer, or a horseman's hammer.

Swords, personally would pick a Bastard sword (aka as the hand and a half sword) over the claymore.

Ronin84 wrote:

Mryoto wrote:This is most likely a stupid idea, but a real Maul would hurt really bad. Most likely worse than a normal hammer weapon. But like stated before it is really hard to use, and it is not a quick weapon at all. You could just ramp up the damage a lot, but then have it cost two actions to hit with it. Kind of like a power punch, but a hell of a lot more effective.

As compared to a claymore? Does that require two attacks...I am asking not sniping.

In my personal opinion, yes it should be more damage then a Claymore, but no I would not have it be two attacks. The slow swing is why I suggested they be a moderate to large strike penalty (easily avoided / responded to). I don't think its so slow as to become a completely impractical weapon in the game by costing two attacks. It's damage would have to be insane (like 1D4 x 10 range) for me to ever consider it at a two attacks per swing, since even at 6D6 (the normal damage a Claymore can do in two attacks) is not enough as the double attack time requires means your defense is wide open. While a strike penalty is more then enough to keep a difference between the two weapons and some realism. Granted that's unnecessary because a Great Axe swings as fast as a Staff or a dagger anyway.

As a note, for most people the term Maul refers to a heavy blunt weapon with a wide striking head, like a Post Maul, similar to a sledgehammer, rather then a Spike Maul, which is more like a Horsemans hammer which has a smaller head for striking.

I feel dumb for asking the initial question because I should have known the inevitable realism comparisons get thrown in. I mean no insult to anyone, please don't take the comment that way. I always laugh a bit on the irony of realism during a role playing game.

I am going to go with the 3d6 for the nice quick and dirty two handed maul, similar to the one Thorgrim used in Conan the Barbarian...

Thanks to everyone who has chimed in! IT has been a long time since I have run ANY Palladium games and I remember some of the pitfalls but I am glad to see such a willing helpful community.