denerfing axes

[Gudiomen]

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)

[cybersamurai]

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

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by cybersamurai

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

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...

[Bruno]

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.

[Johnny Angel]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

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...

I've considered doing this. I haven't tried it out yet though to see how well it works.

[Ultraviolet]

In our 'Song of Ice and Fire' campaign the knights like to use heavy mail, and also stack with plate when they can get away with it. But even against foes in light mail (well, standard DR4 mail) they have a hard time penetrating, since we use Edge Protection rules.

But we also use house rules where axes are set to to Cut+ damage, wich means some armour types have reduced DR vs them, to simulate the better penetration ability.
Same goes for flanged maces and the like which to Cr+ with specific DR reductions like above, as compared to clubs, round maces, quarterstaffs which still just to Cr.

I think the original idea of this came from Icelander, and we stole it and bastardized it for out own use. Thanks/Sorry.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

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)

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.

[Polydamas]

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.

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

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.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Low Tech does implement the increase in the damage of basic set two-handed axe/mace weapons by +1 right across the board.

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.

Originally Posted by cybersamurai

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. (...) So far this house rule has provided a good game play balance in my campaign. Just my two cents

That's useful feedback, anybody else try it and found it to be ok?

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

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...

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...

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

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

Giving balanced cutting and crushing weapons AD(0.5) and using the Edge Protection rules for unbalanced ones works fine for me. Because I'm the sort of person who likes to avoid sharp breakpoints, I also have an intermediate category of heavy weapons that are not quite unbalanced (hatchets, cleavers, falchions, knobbed clubs, bastard swords, greatswords) that use a modified version of the Edge Protection rules, with DR multiplied by x1.5, but the cutting modifier (if any) not kicking in unless DRx2 is penetrated.

This means that longswords and balanced single-handed blades are used to slash against unarmoured limbs and faces, not against mail or plate. Very strong warriors, like Sir Michael in my fantasy campaign, will slash through anything with his magical AD(3) claymore regardless, but if he's faced with Hardened magical armour, he'll use a hammer he carries for such occasions.

Axes are perfectly viable weapons. A Fine (Materials and Balanced) one only costs are much as regular sword and it will be much more effective against mailed foes than a sword. A ST 12 man will do an average of 2 points of damage thrusting through mail with his sword (no damage on a slash unless he rolls a critical hit). With the axe, he does 5 5/6 on average and has a better chance of hitting.