From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it really possible to two-weapon with Mjollnir? I once wished for a Frostbrand and a Firebrand for two-weaponing but they both refuse to be second to another weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14 August 2006

Yes, it is possible to two-weapon with Mjollnir, but the other weapon can't be an artifact. In vanilla nethack, you cannot #twoweapon with two artifacts; this restriction does not exist in Slash'EM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raxvulpine (talkcontribs) 14 August 2006

Is it really the case that Lawful Valkyries get Mjollnir as their first sacrifice gift? Or is that only for Neutral Valkyries?

Every valkyrie gets their own, no need to panic. :) -Progo 06:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing NetHack HD for the iPad (which I believe is just vanilla NetHack 3.4.3), and my first sacrifice gift as a lawful dwarf Valkyrie was Mjollnir, which is listed in my discoveries as "lawful war hammer". Kalifg 15:46, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it still is guaranteed; artifacts can be affiliated with an alignment or a role. Any role will always get its respective sacrifice gift(s) first, which in vanilla is only valkyries, barbarians, samurai, and wizards. Such artifact will always be adjusted to the player's alignment. Excalibur is strange exception; it's technically associated with knights, but is never given as a sacrifice gift (to anyone). -Ion frigate 17:52, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

The SLASH'EM spoiler site says that in there, Mjollnir's extra lightning damage is always 24 instead of the 1d24 of Vanilla, but it isn't mentioned in this article. I won't add it here because I'm not certain which is right, Spoiler or Wiki. Which is right?

slash'em vs nethack

maybe the slash'em spoiler is right about slash'em whilte the nethack spoiler is right about nethack?

I (well, actually my dog) picked up Mjollnir in a shop. I was playing a lawful Valkyrie at the time. I wonder what would have happened if I had lasted long enough to sacrifice at an altar. (I got killed by an orge with a wand of sleep...)

If an artifact has already been created in the game, your god will never give it to you as a gift. Had you sacrificed, your gift would have been something else. Since Mjollnir is guaranteed as the first gift for Valks, this have allowed you to know that it already existed somewhere. -- Killian 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Being engulfed with Mjollnir

I'd rather not get into an edit war here. I am completely unable to reproduce this effect you're talking about with being engulfed. I was using a wizard mode valkyrie with GoP and a -30 mjollnir (to prevent 1 hit kills). I let myself be engulfed by Juiblex, dust vortex, ice vortex, fire vortex, air elemental, purple worm, trapper, and ochre jelly. For all of those I tried both regular attacks and throwing Mjollnir at the monster. I received no messages about taking lightning damage, nor any damage outside of what the engulfing monster was dealing (which was no damage for the dust and ice vortices). Could you at least provide a screenshot/text dump of such a situation where Mjollnir damages you outside of hitting yourself with it? -- Qazmlpok 19:29, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the anonymous poster wasn't playing a Valkyrie. IIRC, there is a significant chance for non-valkyries and ~1% chance for valkyries Mjollnir will not return to their hand when thrown. -Tjr 13:02, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

average damage tables

Please make the table list only the end result. Most readers want only that, and will find the formulas too confusing. --Tjr 11:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. (they also look messy right now -- too wide) Would also be nice to have the tables auto-generated, since there are a few artifacts with these tables now, and they should be consistent. (some even have the rows/columns flipped) Would also be nice for them to have the lowest/highest possible damage instead of only the average dice roll. AileTheAlien 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Most Damaging unenchanted weapon in the game

Mjollnir's status as the most damaging weapon in the game when unenchanted should be mentioned prominently, and should come before its drawback of destroying rings and wands. If the drawback is mentioned first in the article, it creates the impression that the drawback is more important than the damage, which is clearly not the case, as item destruction doesn't happen all the time, worthless items may get destroyed even when it happens, etc.


Alternate strategies

Should alternate strategies for lightning resistant monsters be listed here, or on another page? I've included them here, but they really should be on the main artifacts page.


Average Damage Unenchanted

Average damage unenchanted is disputed. The average damage of mjollnir unenchanted is very important and a feature of the weapon. I thought mojo had 15 and 14 average damage. Table below states 16 and 15. Which is correct? Damage unenchanted is very important as it's a major feature of this weapon. Mojo does well over 2 hd of damage on average meaning it can dispatch ants killer bees sometimes in only one hit. This information should be included, but I don't know if 15 and 14 are correct or 16 and 15 is more correct.

The fact that Mojo does more damage unenchanted even than 2 handed artifact weapons is incredibly notable and should be included.

As well, the strategic idea that there is an argument to be had that it is the best weapon in the game (as damage output is so much more relevant and lifesaving early game than late game) should likewise be noted.


All else aside I have no idea why you fetishise two-handed artifact weapons. This isn't DCSS where they are actually best at dealing damage. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Improper Reverting

Please do not revert whole articles for one item you wish to change. If you wish to change one item (such as not including something about liches) then edit THAT ONE ITEM. Do not revert the whole article which contains various other pieces of information and causes me to lose track of which data was deleted. Reverting because of liches means I have to go back and re-add all the other data back which you deleted. Be a good editor. I know you can do this.


Note well, I didn't include all the stuff on liches, that was a different editor. I merely added a bit to it because I thought liches were an important topic seeing as they're one of the most dangerous monsters in the game.

I didn't just revert because of liches; the rest was bad too. Please stop junking up the wiki. Pinkbeast (talk)

The rest was not bad, it was important information. If you wish to format it to communicate the same information, please do so by editing the language to make it better. Deleting helpful information is not desireable, stop doing it. Adding good, helpful information is not "junking up the wiki".

Your request to have me stop editing the wiki and stop helping people with helpful, good information is hereby denied.

LEARN how to be a GOOD editor, not someone that simply deletes information if you don't like the syntax.


Why do you keep telling us how to run a wiki that has been running for years without problems before you came along? You're just riling up everyone against you, and the most likely conclusion is that the wiki admins will eventually have enough of you and ban you. There are rules on this wiki after all, and everyone else is capable of abiding them. But what you are doing is called "vandalism" and "edit-warring" and is very clearly against the rules. --Bluescreenofdeath (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Really, there are rules against providing information that's helpful to players? Claim rejected, please provide such a rule. Providing information and edits that include that information isn't "Vandalism". Claim rejected.

What rules do you claim I'm violating?

I'll tell you EXACTLY how to run a wiki because you've been running it wrong for years, making articles that don't properly help or educate people. Just because you've done it for years doesn't make it correct.


Current version:

"Mjolnir has a small chance of destroying wands and rings in a monster's inventory. In practice, this is rare because even intelligent enemies don't pick up or carry rings and Mjolnir will usually kill the monster before its wands are destroyed."

This is on the right track, and I appreciate the gist of my edit being included in a differnet format. However it is not quite true that "mjollnir will usually kill the monster before its wands (or rings) are destroyed".

The chance for mjollnir (not mjolnir, spelling error I think) destroying items being low is because the monster will die first is not quite correct. I guess it is true that there is a probability that it will explode rings and wands on each hit (which is not a certainty). But the real reason that the drawback is rare and minor is because of a probability tree: mjollnir doesn't destroy normal items>doesn't destroy weapons or armor>doesn't destroy items that appear as a death drop> doesn't destroy rings that enemies pick up because none really do>doesn't destroy items on the ground> doesn't destroy magic items except rings and wands> doubles of rings and wands are rarely that relevant (if you have one that's usually all you need)> and so forth.

A player that doesn't understand the this diminishing probability (50% and of that 50% only 33% of that, and of that 30% only 50% of that number etc) will misapprehend the drawback as a major one, when really it's a minor one.

My note about conducts was taken out, but I don't think it was really understood, and I think it's relevant. In a game with no polypiling, and/or no wishing, or other difficult conducts, item preservation might be more important.


Indestructible war hammer?

This would appear to be a bit misleading in the encyclopedia entry (re "indestructible"). -Actual-nh (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

...You know those don't always reflect game properties, right? --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
When it's a quote, that's fine. If not, it's a bug IMO. -Actual-nh (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It is an encyclopedia entry whose purpose is to serve as a means of flavoring the game in question while hinting at some (though not necessarily all) of a given object or creature's properties, and as such need not always be taken at face value. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I can see your viewpoint, but I still think that, if it's devteam-written text, it should be accurate. -Actual-nh (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
You have the right to that opinion, I suppose. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)