Lucern Hammer

[Ant]

Is a Lucern Hammer a blunt weapon that a Cleric can wield? And is it two handed?

[foster1941]

It's a polearm (it's got a long spear-tip with "prongs" at the base of the spear-blade), not a blunt weapon that a cleric can use. And yes, it's two-handed.

If you're curious, you can find a picture of it's head (as well as the heads of most of the other D&D polearms) at: [removed]

EDIT: what's going on with that link? It looks like I typed it right...

EDIT AGAIN: the proboards server doesn't like that URL. Anyway, to get to the page I was trying to link to, type in "lucern hammer" at google and follow the second link down, to the page called "Polearms Used in Nethack."

[The Master]

don't type any html tags, the server puts them in automatically.

[foster1941]

Another page with a picture of a lucern (or lucerne in this case) hammer.

[Ant]

What about a Bec de corbin?

Is a Footman's Flail one or two handed?

[foster1941]

A bec de corbin is sort of like a more compact version of a lucern hammer -- it's still a polearm with a spear-tip and prongs, but they're smaller, making it effectively a "can opener on a stick." Definitely two-handed and not usable by clerics. See here for a picture and description.

See my other post regarding one-handed vs. two-handed weapons. IMO the footman's flail should be a two-handed weapon but it's never actually stated one way or the other in the (1E) rules, so I suppose it's MrE's call as far as the Play By Post game goes...

[AxeMental]

I think Lucern hammers are blunt and usable by clerics. They are two handed.


Foster's example

Lucerne Hammer was fitted with a four-pronged hammer head rather than a simple hammerhead or blade. Not particularly useful for slashing, the Lucerne Hammer was excellent for thrusting, smashing, and ripping open armour (even against a mounted opponent).

If you took away the spike end it would be a 4 pronged hammer on a stick, thus smashing (or at least popping.

OK I've just looked at a bunch of diff weapons sites, and every pic of a LH. has a spear head with the prongs, so it looks as if Foster is correct, not something for clerics, and once again something I've been doing wrong.

[dzubak]

Axe, we always played it as such as well. What's that I asked my DM, oh just a really big hammer.

I mean look at the name: Lucern HAMMER. Boy talk about feeling like an idiot when receiving the UA.

Er sorry guys, looks like your clerics are gonna have to give up those magical pole-arms.

-d

[northrundicandus]

Well, any dolt can look at the class list of weapons. In both UA and the PHB cleric weapons are expressly listed. No guessing needed!

;D

[Ant]

It's misleading since the listing in the PHB says Hammer, Lucern. It makes it seem like that weapon is a different kind of hammer. Especially mixed with the Cleric list of weapons that has "hammer" listed as usuable. So, hammer or hammer, lucern seems to be valid choices for a cleric. Of course, this assumption is wrong, the lucern hammer is really a misnomer. But its an easy mistake to make.

[dzubak]

Well, any dolt can look at the class list of weapons. In both UA and the PHB cleric weapons are expressly listed. No guessing needed!

Jeez North, what do you expect me to do read the rulebooks. That was the DMs job. ;D

[northrundicandus]

I guess I was an ass of the a DM even back in the day- long before I knew what a Lucern Hammer was!

"Can I use a Lucern Hammer?"

"No. The book says hammer. No exceptions!"

;D

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Hammers make really, really, really crap weapons of war in any case, as in fact do flails. Both weapons ought to do 1d2 damage and have -10 to hit every AC type.

They're fit only for unrealistic fantasy art and unfeasibly-proportioned Citadel miniatures.

[Ant]

PapersAndPaychecks said:

Hammers make really, really, really crap weapons of war in any case, as in fact do flails. Both weapons ought to do 1d2 damage and have -10 to hit every AC type.

That's pretty dead on. As I understand it, the two main ways to kill an opponent was to cleave his head with a strong slashing weapon such as a broadsword or axe; or in the case of well-armored opponents piercing weapons would be employed to tear off armor plates or strike unprotected areas. Even maces were more of a piercing weapon, the head's mass was used to drive the spikes on them.

Of course, I am a 21st century dork, and not a 15th century warrior

I guess hammers would be good against moles or maybe dwarves, like a whack-a-dwarf game down by the seashore

[Ant]

If you read some of the links floating around about medieval weaponry, most weapons that we regard as not true to the times were not really wielded by armies it seems. It appears that these weapons (picks, hammers, clubs, etc) were improvised weapons among poorer armies/militias and also for self defense.

To exclude these weapons I guess would be somewhat of a disservice to the history of the era since I imagine there would be alot of peasant miltias and poor nations trying to field armies. Of course, if you reduce the effectiveness of these so called improvised weapons, no one is going to use them anyway. I would suppose that is the reason these non-military weapons are included and are on par with the standard arms of the day.