Axes vs. Swords [Archive] - Wizards Community

Axes vs. Swords [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
BrianD
08-03-07, 05:24 PM Lemme preface this by saying that this is not a core D&D 3.5 discussion. These specific weapon rules are customized purely for a D&D 3.5/Star Wars Saga Edition hybrid I'm planning on using. That said, I'm sure people here on this board will be able to help me out on this one.

Okay so in this variant system I'm running, players have more hit points (max HD times 3 at first level), so weapon damage has been increased as well (partially to keep them on par with the standard SWSE weapon, the blaster, and partially because after running a straight SWSE game I realized how much fun rolling multiple dice for damage is). Another thing is that no weapons have different critical threat ranges or x3 modifiers -- a natural 20 is an automatic critical hit that scores double damage.

Basically I'm looking for a way to still differentiate swords and axes enough that choosing to fight with one or the other actually affects how you fight. Here's what I've come up with:

I broke up each weapon category into 5 subsets: light (simple), light, one-handed, one-handed (exotic), and two-handed. Now both light (simple) weapons deal 2d4 damage. As the weapons got bigger and better, I improved the weapon damage in one of two ways. For axes, damage was increased by rolling an additional d4; for swords, damage was increased by improving the die one step. So:

1. Dagger = 2d4 (2-8)
2. Short Sword = 2d6 (2-12)
3. Longsword = 2d8 (2-16)
4. Bastard Sword = 2d10 (2-20)
5. Greatsword = 2d12 (2-24)

1. Hatchet = 2d4 (2-8)
2. Handaxe = 3d4 (3-12)
3. Battleaxe = 4d4 (4-16)
4. War Axe = 5d4 (5-20)
5. Greataxe = 6d4 (6-24)

So as you can see plainly see, the two corresponding "levels" of the different types do the same maximum damage. Now, I'm no math major, but it seems axes however receive a couple of benefits: first, their minimum damage is increased by 1 for every level; second, their rolls are on more of a bell curve.

I'd say the big thing that swords have going for them are the fact that there are a few cool feats like Rapid Strike and Mighty Swing (from SWSE) have benefits that increase damage by one die in exchange for a -2 penalty to the attack roll. With a Rapid Strike, a longsword does 3-24 damage while a battleaxe deals 5-20.

I dunno, I'm still thinking it through. Anybody see anything wrong with this that I haven't noticed? And furthermore, does anybody have a way to do it better?
tarkin
08-03-07, 05:31 PM It is not just the minimum and the curve, your axes do better average damage than the swords. 2d12 averages 13, while 6d4 averages 15

From a realism perspective, I would reverse it, having swords do better average damage. Axes are pretty much a tool that can also kill, while a sword is pretty much something only designed to kill, so it should be better at killing.
fatal error
08-03-07, 05:57 PM I agree with Tarkin. While Rapid Strike seems more like a Sword, and would be a reason to keep the sword as the big die one, Might Swing sounds more like an Axe, and if they're equally common, I think consistency should go to the Sword.
RollaD20
08-03-07, 09:18 PM not familiar with star wars but since its a D&D cross why not every 2 advances for the axes just up the critical number once starting at x2
Holy_Beholder
08-04-07, 12:46 AM It doesn't work, SAGA has an auto crit on a 20, and you don't need to reroll, and all weapons do x2 damage. There are fewer, so it doesn't matter. As an auto crit, 19-20 is insanely powerful.
Werral
08-04-07, 06:57 AM Tarkin: the fact they were tools has little to do with it - war axes were developed from work axes just as swords were developed from knives.

I may be wrong, but I think that axes actually did more damage than swords when they hit. Swords however were better at parrying, faster and had a tendency to get stuck in people.

Some ideas:

Swords give a defence bonus in melee but axes do more damage.

Or:

If you roll a double on damage dice in a blow that drops your foe with an axe, your axe is stuck and you need to use a move action to pull it out (provokes an AoO). Axe users will want a sidearm and quickdraw.

I'd use the same rule for picks and up their damage dice.
Jangotat13
08-04-07, 03:28 PM I may be wrong, but I think that axes actually did more damage than swords when they hit. Swords however were better at parrying, faster and had a tendency to get stuck in people.

pretty sure that is correct, because of the mechanics. An axe because all the weight is focused at one point will do more damage on a single swing, and is simpler to use. However, it is harder to fight defensively with an axe than with a sword. and swords are also easier to get off multiple strikes with.

So maybe have axes do more damage but your attacks with them are # of attacks you would normally make -1 with a minimum of 1.

of course I'm not very knoledgeable in the game mechanics of either game but in dnd that sounds very unbalanced in lower levels. Axes are also cheaper than swords generally.
Watchman
08-04-07, 03:33 PM By what I know of it, ceteris paribus axes always had the advantage when it comes to pure destructive effect. This isn't really that surprising, given the tip-heaviness and comparatively small impact area inherent to the devices. Swords on the other hand seem to have generally been more agile and versatile, even if some of the heftier types were apparently employed rather like axes to deliver terrible shearing blows.

Case in point, axes were long the choice weapon against mid-heavy armour most swords had major trouble making an impression on (the really tough stuff tended to get smacked with maces). I also understand most shields had a habit of starting to come apart uncomfortably soon when having to deal with the choppy things.
locustechpriest
08-04-07, 06:54 PM I may be wrong, but I think that axes actually did more damage than swords when they hit. Swords however were better at parrying, faster and had a tendency to get stuck in people.

No no no, it's all wrong! (Tehe, okay... it's mostly true.) Axes are more likely to get stuck and swords deliver cleaner cuts. I don't know where, but I read an account of a woman requesting execution by sword, as axes had a reputation of requiring several blows to decapitate.

Well, that's my two cents.
Holy_Beholder
08-04-07, 07:01 PM Axes did more damage, however they were less balanced. As for the execution with a sword, an axe isn't exactly precise, and in an execution could possibly go in at a weird angle, or start at the shoulders, and have to chop through more bone. However an axe puts in much more force due to it being tip heavy, and penetrates armor better. If you wanted to punch through the big stuff, you used a mace, or maybe a crossbow(or a sling, but those took more training). If you were really lucky, and they managed to line themselves up with a ballista, their armor was next to useless.
Werral
08-05-07, 04:37 AM Since he's using saga he coudl give axes a defence bonus say +1 in melee at BAB 1-5, +2 at BAB 6-10, +3 at BAB 11-15 and +4 at BAB 16-20.

Axes/halberds/picks would get higher base damage and could use the sticking rule.

Does that sound balanced?

You could also use Armour as DR and give each weapon an AP rating to bypass it.
Irving
08-05-07, 07:23 AM I don't know where, but I read an account of a woman requesting execution by sword, as axes had a reputation of requiring several blows to decapitate.

That would be Anne Boleyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn) you're thinking of. Henry employed a French swordsman to do the deed.

As for the sword vs. axe debate... axe tend to be more specialized sorts of weapons. In wartime, the sword was everyone's second-favorite weapon; people tended to use something else first, then switch to the sword when it came time to close to hand-to-hand. Axes can cut through heavier armor and deal more damage (although in the real world this doesn't matter much - an axe blow or a sword blow, dead is dead.) Axes are slower weapons on balance, though. The "pollaxe" was a multitool of a weapon that had some of the features of an axe, hammer, and spear; it was a weapon of choice for quite some time.
natzero
08-05-07, 12:09 PM you could even give them the same dmg for gameplay sake

just differ them with dmg type

swords are either piercing/slashing tho some are both

axes would be more like piercing/blud or slashing/blud

for example
the force from a axe would dmg a skeleton better than a sword's slash

the designs of the weapons could easily lead to which a pc chooses.

or hell make them all the same and say pick wut u like more ;p
its all preference anyway ie scimitar vs rapier slashing or piercing
aelryinth
08-05-07, 12:32 PM Easiest would be to simply say an axe can do blunt or slash, if it has a hammer backer.

A sword can do slash or pierce, depending on how it's used.

Completely balanced, just make them equal damage and you are done.

==Aelryinth

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BrianD 08-03-07, 05:24 PM	Lemme preface this by saying that this is not a core D&D 3.5 discussion. These specific weapon rules are customized purely for a D&D 3.5/Star Wars Saga Edition hybrid I'm planning on using. That said, I'm sure people here on this board will be able to help me out on this one. Okay so in this variant system I'm running, players have more hit points (max HD times 3 at first level), so weapon damage has been increased as well (partially to keep them on par with the standard SWSE weapon, the blaster, and partially because after running a straight SWSE game I realized how much fun rolling multiple dice for damage is). Another thing is that no weapons have different critical threat ranges or x3 modifiers -- a natural 20 is an automatic critical hit that scores double damage. Basically I'm looking for a way to still differentiate swords and axes enough that choosing to fight with one or the other actually affects how you fight. Here's what I've come up with: I broke up each weapon category into 5 subsets: light (simple), light, one-handed, one-handed (exotic), and two-handed. Now both light (simple) weapons deal 2d4 damage. As the weapons got bigger and better, I improved the weapon damage in one of two ways. For axes, damage was increased by rolling an additional d4; for swords, damage was increased by improving the die one step. So: 1. Dagger = 2d4 (2-8) 2. Short Sword = 2d6 (2-12) 3. Longsword = 2d8 (2-16) 4. Bastard Sword = 2d10 (2-20) 5. Greatsword = 2d12 (2-24) 1. Hatchet = 2d4 (2-8) 2. Handaxe = 3d4 (3-12) 3. Battleaxe = 4d4 (4-16) 4. War Axe = 5d4 (5-20) 5. Greataxe = 6d4 (6-24) So as you can see plainly see, the two corresponding "levels" of the different types do the same maximum damage. Now, I'm no math major, but it seems axes however receive a couple of benefits: first, their minimum damage is increased by 1 for every level; second, their rolls are on more of a bell curve. I'd say the big thing that swords have going for them are the fact that there are a few cool feats like Rapid Strike and Mighty Swing (from SWSE) have benefits that increase damage by one die in exchange for a -2 penalty to the attack roll. With a Rapid Strike, a longsword does 3-24 damage while a battleaxe deals 5-20. I dunno, I'm still thinking it through. Anybody see anything wrong with this that I haven't noticed? And furthermore, does anybody have a way to do it better?
tarkin 08-03-07, 05:31 PM	It is not just the minimum and the curve, your axes do better average damage than the swords. 2d12 averages 13, while 6d4 averages 15 From a realism perspective, I would reverse it, having swords do better average damage. Axes are pretty much a tool that can also kill, while a sword is pretty much something only designed to kill, so it should be better at killing.
fatal error 08-03-07, 05:57 PM	I agree with Tarkin. While Rapid Strike seems more like a Sword, and would be a reason to keep the sword as the big die one, Might Swing sounds more like an Axe, and if they're equally common, I think consistency should go to the Sword.
RollaD20 08-03-07, 09:18 PM	not familiar with star wars but since its a D&D cross why not every 2 advances for the axes just up the critical number once starting at x2
Holy_Beholder 08-04-07, 12:46 AM	It doesn't work, SAGA has an auto crit on a 20, and you don't need to reroll, and all weapons do x2 damage. There are fewer, so it doesn't matter. As an auto crit, 19-20 is insanely powerful.
Werral 08-04-07, 06:57 AM	Tarkin: the fact they were tools has little to do with it - war axes were developed from work axes just as swords were developed from knives. I may be wrong, but I think that axes actually did more damage than swords when they hit. Swords however were better at parrying, faster and had a tendency to get stuck in people. Some ideas: Swords give a defence bonus in melee but axes do more damage. Or: If you roll a double on damage dice in a blow that drops your foe with an axe, your axe is stuck and you need to use a move action to pull it out (provokes an AoO). Axe users will want a sidearm and quickdraw. I'd use the same rule for picks and up their damage dice.
Jangotat13 08-04-07, 03:28 PM	I may be wrong, but I think that axes actually did more damage than swords when they hit. Swords however were better at parrying, faster and had a tendency to get stuck in people. pretty sure that is correct, because of the mechanics. An axe because all the weight is focused at one point will do more damage on a single swing, and is simpler to use. However, it is harder to fight defensively with an axe than with a sword. and swords are also easier to get off multiple strikes with. So maybe have axes do more damage but your attacks with them are # of attacks you would normally make -1 with a minimum of 1. of course I'm not very knoledgeable in the game mechanics of either game but in dnd that sounds very unbalanced in lower levels. Axes are also cheaper than swords generally.
Watchman 08-04-07, 03:33 PM	By what I know of it, ceteris paribus axes always had the advantage when it comes to pure destructive effect. This isn't really that surprising, given the tip-heaviness and comparatively small impact area inherent to the devices. Swords on the other hand seem to have generally been more agile and versatile, even if some of the heftier types were apparently employed rather like axes to deliver terrible shearing blows. Case in point, axes were long the choice weapon against mid-heavy armour most swords had major trouble making an impression on (the really tough stuff tended to get smacked with maces). I also understand most shields had a habit of starting to come apart uncomfortably soon when having to deal with the choppy things.
locustechpriest 08-04-07, 06:54 PM	I may be wrong, but I think that axes actually did more damage than swords when they hit. Swords however were better at parrying, faster and had a tendency to get stuck in people. No no no, it's all wrong! (Tehe, okay... it's mostly true.) Axes are more likely to get stuck and swords deliver cleaner cuts. I don't know where, but I read an account of a woman requesting execution by sword, as axes had a reputation of requiring several blows to decapitate. Well, that's my two cents.
Holy_Beholder 08-04-07, 07:01 PM	Axes did more damage, however they were less balanced. As for the execution with a sword, an axe isn't exactly precise, and in an execution could possibly go in at a weird angle, or start at the shoulders, and have to chop through more bone. However an axe puts in much more force due to it being tip heavy, and penetrates armor better. If you wanted to punch through the big stuff, you used a mace, or maybe a crossbow(or a sling, but those took more training). If you were really lucky, and they managed to line themselves up with a ballista, their armor was next to useless.
Werral 08-05-07, 04:37 AM	Since he's using saga he coudl give axes a defence bonus say +1 in melee at BAB 1-5, +2 at BAB 6-10, +3 at BAB 11-15 and +4 at BAB 16-20. Axes/halberds/picks would get higher base damage and could use the sticking rule. Does that sound balanced? You could also use Armour as DR and give each weapon an AP rating to bypass it.
Irving 08-05-07, 07:23 AM	I don't know where, but I read an account of a woman requesting execution by sword, as axes had a reputation of requiring several blows to decapitate. That would be Anne Boleyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn) you're thinking of. Henry employed a French swordsman to do the deed. As for the sword vs. axe debate... axe tend to be more specialized sorts of weapons. In wartime, the sword was everyone's second-favorite weapon; people tended to use something else first, then switch to the sword when it came time to close to hand-to-hand. Axes can cut through heavier armor and deal more damage (although in the real world this doesn't matter much - an axe blow or a sword blow, dead is dead.) Axes are slower weapons on balance, though. The "pollaxe" was a multitool of a weapon that had some of the features of an axe, hammer, and spear; it was a weapon of choice for quite some time.
natzero 08-05-07, 12:09 PM	you could even give them the same dmg for gameplay sake just differ them with dmg type swords are either piercing/slashing tho some are both axes would be more like piercing/blud or slashing/blud for example the force from a axe would dmg a skeleton better than a sword's slash the designs of the weapons could easily lead to which a pc chooses. or hell make them all the same and say pick wut u like more ;p its all preference anyway ie scimitar vs rapier slashing or piercing
aelryinth 08-05-07, 12:32 PM	Easiest would be to simply say an axe can do blunt or slash, if it has a hammer backer. A sword can do slash or pierce, depending on how it's used. Completely balanced, just make them equal damage and you are done. ==Aelryinth