denerfing axes
 

This has been brought up before, but axes just aren't good weapons to use, comparatively. Kromm has stated that were there to be a new edition, axes would probably all get +1 to damage. Edge protection rules from LT, mainly aimed at swords, have made axes even less attractive, Dan's conceded that axes should probably punch through mail better than balanced swords.

To make matters worse, GURPS puts a lot of the damage into ST and very little on weapons (and thus, leverage). You get little more than a damage type modifier for wielding most weapons. So differentiating between a lightweight, base heavy, long cutting surface and a massive, tip-heavy, short cutting surface gets tricky. Damage is already pretty high, compared to firearms. Regardless, that involves more complicated changes...

So, in this day and age, of LT and it's companions... would the +1 to damage still be a good idea to make axes more attractive? Alternatively, would axes ignoring the "edge protection" optional rule be a way to achieve this? Would both options be overkill?

How do we pimp axes so they become more attractive options for adventurers?

Edit: let's avoid FLAT OUT cinematic options, like the "dwarven" DF quality modifier...
Edit: correcting myself, Kromm suggested +1 to all two-handed axe/mac weapons (so, not 1-handed axes, but yes for 2-handed maces)

Re: denerfing axes
 

In my current campaign, I am using the "edge protection" rules from low tech. However, I only apply it to balanced cutting weapons such as swords--not to axes. I know that the debate of slash/cut vs chop has been done to death, so I do not want to get into it. So far this house rule has provided a good game play balance in my campaign. Just my two cents

Re: denerfing axes
 

For those who don't want to go that far, perhaps axes would only face 1/2 of the Edge Protection? So they'd have to exceed 150% of the target's DR, rather than 200%, to gain the cutting modifier. This may be too complicated for some though...

Re: denerfing axes
 

If you read Low Tech, it already implements +1 damage for Two-Handed Axe/Mace weapons (and gives the Axe separate stats for two-handed use). I would not increase damage further without fixing swung damage and the bloated armour penetration of muscle-powered weapons.

Right now axes usually get: +1 swung damage; unbalanced; 10% cost; can hook

whereas swords get +0 swung damage; balanced; 100% cost; can thrust

The problem with axes against armour is that I don't know of any good data. We are down to trained intuition working on anecdotes and vaguely related experiments. Its probably best not to appeal to realism to change things until you are really sure that the change would be more realistic.

Re: denerfing axes
 

One more thought: GURPS weapon axes are versatile tools which can be used against wood, flesh, or armour (not all axes used in war fit this description, but many do). Outdoor adventurers will need a few axes per group: saving a few pounds by carrying a Small Axe (3 lbs) instead of a hatchet plus a broadsword (5 lbs) isn't a negligible advantage. This is one reason that swords fell out of fashion in the borderlands of 18th century North America.

Re: denerfing axes
 

For what its worth, even with Edge Protection rules in play, the sheer cheapness of axes makes them still very attractive. Though of course not for their role in penetrating armour, so if you were looking for that, it's not so good.

Low Tech does implement the increase in the damage of basic set two-handed axe/mace weapons by +1 right across the board. I've further increased the damage of the Two-handed Axe by 1 in my game (and probably will any other double-dagger weapon), but have yet to see it tested in play.

Something else I've toyed with (but not fully tested) is changing the damage bonus on axes from the traditional flat plus to a dice equivalent - this means that per-die modifiers like Mighty Blows, All Out Attack and Weapon Master are scaled up for the weapon. It also gives potentially higher maximum damage, but lower minimum damage so may not be quite what you're looking for.

A "half version" would be to give axes an extra "virtual" die purely for the purposes of calculating per-die bonuses. Completely untested here.

I believe at least one forum member gives balanced cutting weapons a (0.5) armor divisor as an alternative. So instead of denerfing axes he nerfs swords and similar weapons.

Re: denerfing axes
 

Note that for the same price*, you can get a standard sword or a fine axe. Thus, given the same budget you can get an axe that does +2 damage compared to the sword.

(If you are willing to fork out for a fine sword, though, you can't progress to a better quality axe. The best possible axes in bog-standard GURPS are fine quality).

Luke

* At TL 6 or less.

Re: denerfing axes
 

The cheapness of axes has another important factor: it makes Fine quality much more affordable. If you really want to compare apples to apples, stack a Fine Axe against a Good Broadsword.

The Fine Axe brings sw+3 to the party, and at $500 is the same price as the basic Broadsword at sw+1. That's like All-Out Attack (Strong) for free. Use it two-handed, and you get another +1 damage per LT. I wouldn't advise stacking yet another +1 damage on top of that as a houserule.

Re: denerfing axes
 

Heh, that's what I get for never looking at Basic's weapon tables again since LT came out. So the +1 issue is done, that's one thing done.
That's useful feedback, anybody else try it and found it to be ok?
Yeah, it sounds more realistic, even if it's better than a light blade, cutting weapons should still not be as good as impaling ones at penetrating armor. But, as you say, it's more math than I think my players would be comfortable with. It gives you fractions you have to round, and remember which way to round.
Plus, I would like to preserve the possibility of mail occasionally stopping axes, even if it breaks your ribs....

I'd really like to hear more from people that treat unbalanced cutting blades differently than balanced ones with regards to edge protection...

Re: denerfing axes
 

Not true, Low Tech extends it to Very Fine (for a very large modifier)