Y R axes better than swords???

[Gunrunner]

Does anyone else have a problem with axes being blatantly better than swords in the main book and Fantasy Hero? I don't like that too much. A short sword does 1d6 damage with a STR minimum of 10 while a small axe does 1d6+1 damage with a STR minimum of 8. Why??? Do you really need at least average/slightly above average STR to use a short sword effectively? I'm not sure Frodo would even have a STR of 10 to use Sting. I usually give swords a +1 OCV bonus to represent that they are balanced and can be wielded quicker because of that.

[Guest joen00b]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

It's a weight to size ratio for damage. Axes cleave deeper on strikes because swords are used for a dual purpose: Slashing and poking, effectively taking a bit of damage potential from it.

 

An axes weight is all at one end, it's much easier to use inertia to strike with it given it's long handle, where as a sword has a long damage area and a short handle, a bit more difficult to weild, requiring more strength to make it effective.

 

That would be my .02 though.

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Let's talk about the mythology of the sword. The sword is not the ultimate weapon. The sword is second best in just about every category of attack. People don't use swords for chopping down trees because axes are the most efficient and effective way to deliver a chopping attack. Spears and other polearms are far more effective at piercing attacks than a sword. A buckler or shield is much more efficient at blocking attacks.

 

The one area where the sword wins is versitility. A good sword can cut, slash stab and parry. The strength of the sword is that you have a lot of options with it during a fight and you can adjust how you use it to suit the fight.

 

Of course a lot depends on your sword. Mythology aside, the katana is not the ultimate sword. Every sword was a set of tradeoffs in the area of cutting; slashing and chopping, and other traits. In some situations you want a rapier. In others you want a big zweihander.

 

It would be nice if we could sit down and figure out how to model realistic weapons as a set of HERO powers. A sword comes down to a multipower when you get down to it, given how you use it, and various swords have different slot options. An axe is best modelled as a flat HKA, since there's not much you can do with an axe except chop with it.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

What the mutant said.

 

Swords are the great all-around weapon, but that's all they are. Axes can be used for other things (chopping, obviously), spears are used for hunting, daggers were used at dinner time, but swords are used for killing people. Versatility is the thing, plus a sword rarely "chops". To use it correctly you want to open a wound and sort of drag the sword along it for blood loss, or stab with the tip to puncture. If you "chop" with a sword you run the risk of getting it stuck. That's rarely the case with an axe since it usually opens a big enough wound to be withdrawn (assuming you don't get caught on bone).

 

Remember, too, that swords are generally quicker in combat than axes, and they require less strength, thus making them more appealing to the warrior masses.

 

So yeah, axes are better than swords FOR DAMAGE, but not necessarily for general use in warfare.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

There is an excellent show on the history channel called Conquest. They had an episode where they went into this in some detail. If I remeber correctly, they stated that the axe was superior to the sword as an offensive weapon based on is damage potential and the difficulty in blocking it due to the way the weight of the head is distributed. That also gives it much better armor penetration. The sword wins out for versatility. Also, you had to be a big guy to wield a larger axe well. To my knowledge short swords in fantasy games are based on the Roman gladus. Isn't that mainly a stabbing weapon, and therefore probably a little more difficult to weild effectively? I don't know about the STR min. I would think that the small axe refers to something like a tomahawk or a fransica. Both of them are impressive weapons, but not very heavy. Watch the 1990's version of Last of the Mohicans or The Patriot with Mel Gibson to see what I'm talking about for the tomahawk.

 

Sting is a long dagger. It's probably like a good sized Bowie Knife in length, but not pattern. Frodo is so small that it's a sword for him. He probalbly would not be able to wield a gladus.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Traditional military weapons are pole arms (usually the spear) and short thrusting swords. This is because of their usefulness in formation fighting. Something axes, with their wide swing arc, are awful at.

[SirWilliam]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Repeat after me: All game statistics are inherently arbitrary. Feel better?

 

As far as in real-life goes the whole concept of comparing a short sword to a small axe is inherently an "apples and oranges" proposition. What kind of sword? (gladius, cinquenda, and wakizashi(sp?) would all qualify as "short" but they are very different weapons) What kind of axe? (taper axe, hatchet, and tomahawk would all qualify as "small" axes, but they are different weapons) Under some conditions an the axe may win out and others the sword, it depends on fighting style the type of armor being struck and what is being struck.

 

There are hundreds, possibly thousands of different weapons that fall under the "sword" and "axe" general headings but they can be so radically different in manufacture, style and implentation as to be completely unusuable by someone skilled in one style. For instance, do you think a 3rd century Roman legionaire would know how to employ a zweihander? The answer would be "no" even though they're both swords.

 

Now something I've not seen mentioned yet, is that an axe has one big weakness as compared to a sword - it's handle is made of (in general) wood. This means it can be broken. (most likely by a bad strike as compared to enemy action) A good sword is much less likely to break under heavy use.

 

I've done some basic weaponsmithing, and it's incredible the number of things that impact how a weapon is best employed. The material, how it's made, how it's sharpened (or if it is, some swords weren't).

 

I guess this boils down to: If you don't like a stat, change it, the sky isn't going to fall and I'm sure you could find some justification for it. You could even just flip-flop the stat lines.

[Fitz]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Traditional military weapons are pole arms (usually the spear) and short thrusting swords. This is because of their usefulness in formation fighting. Something axes' date=' with their wide swing arc, are awful at.[/quote']

 

You're forgetting such notable close-formation axemen as the Anglo-Saxon huscarles, and their close descendents the Varangian Guard. They fought shoulder to shoulder with dirty great big axes against spearmen, and very successfully too until the Normans introduced them to the concept of combined massed archery, heavy cavalry and the feigned flight. (Also, they weren't very good at running away from a hopeless position, which doesn't make very good strategic sense).

 

Spears and other pointy polearms and short stabbing swords were popular because they were cheap to make and required relatively little training for use en masse. You can give an ignorant bumpkin a spear and say "hold this end" and send him into battle with a few hundred of his mates and have something which may not be martially skilled, but at least it was prickly.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Now something I've not seen mentioned yet' date=' is that an axe has one big weakness as compared to a sword - it's handle is made of (in general) wood. This means it can be broken. (most likely by a bad strike as compared to enemy action) A good sword is much less likely to break under heavy use.[/quote']

 

Yet I have broken several swords (two spanish rapiers and one broadsword) while fencing, but never an axe while chopping wood.

 

I agree with your point about arbitrary stats. I breifly toyed with making all weapons low threat (1/2 d6), medium threat (1d6) and heavy threat (2d6). This would model the way weapons are used in fiction. If you want a character to be threatened a little, the antagonist has a small knife. A lot and he has a sword. If you want him pinned, the antagonist has a gun. If the character is very competent, it's an automatic assault rifle. It doesn't really matter.

 

Then I came to my senses and realized my players liked the stats.

 

Bottom line, if you want your players to favor swords, make them more appealing. Give them an across the board +1 OCV. Or whatever. Make them the most commonly enchanted item in your world to encourage players to specialize in them.

 

Keith "Why does no one ever find an enchanted H-Bomb?" Curtis

 

PS. if you search the old archives, there were numerous threads on this very subject when FREd first debuted.

[Gunrunner]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

I understand that because axes have most of their weight on the end of the shaft, that they'll do more damage than a sword - granted. And some of you even said that it takes a strong person to wield an axe effectively - okay. And it's been said that swords are more versatile than axes - I agree. Swords are easier to wield because of their balance as well as their ability to slash or stab. I guess I just wanted to know why Fantasy Hero didn't take this into account by perhaps giving swords a +1 OCV or a lower STR minimum - that's all. I believe a sword can be wielded faster (if not more damaging) than an axe of equal size, and I just wanted other people's imput on this and see if they had a legitimate reason why this wouldn't be so, or perhaps why this wasn't represented in the book.

 

I know I can change the rules in the book to whatever I want when running a campaign, and I know the rules are not set in stone. I was just asking out of curiousity.

[Gunrunner]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Oh yeah Keith, I think I know why you're more prone to break a sword rather than an axe in a strike. An axe has a round handle for the most part. Because it is round, it distributes the force of the blow more evenly amongst the shaft to reduce the chances that all the force is focused on one area of the shaft and breaking it at that point. The thin shape of a blade does not allow for much distribution of force. Therefore it is more likely to focus the force of a strike on an area of the blade, breaking it because the force is too great on that section

[Gunrunner]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Here was a big discussion on the subject that KeithCurtis helped point out...

 

http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/FantasyHero/000269.html

 

The poster is saying exactly what I feel about this topic. Quote from Roland, and I agree most whole-heartedly:

 

"As a matter of realism, it might be reasonable to have some weapon types distinctly superior to others. But, if you are going for realism, swords should be superior to other weapons, not inferior. As a matter of history, they were the HTH weapon of choice in cultures from Japan to Spain for several centuries."

 

Sorry for the triple post, this is my last post until I'm prompted to respond

[Netzilla]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Quote from Roland, and I agree most whole-heartedly:

 

"As a matter of realism, it might be reasonable to have some weapon types distinctly superior to others. But, if you are going for realism, swords should be superior to other weapons, not inferior. As a matter of history, they were the HTH weapon of choice in cultures from Japan to Spain for several centuries."

 

Sorry for the triple post, this is my last post until I'm prompted to respond

 

Well, if one is wanting good information about historic armed combat, I can't think of a website I'd recommend more than the ARMA (the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts; formerly the Historic Armed Combat Association). These guys have a lot of experts on the subject and do lots of research. They also have a nice articles & essays section on nearly any medieval/renaissance combat topic you can think of. Here's their site:

 

http://www.thehaca.com/

 

One thing to note, is that according to several articals on their site, the sword was *not* the primary 'HTH weapon of choice in cultures from Japan to Spain for several centuries'. The primary weapons for most cultures (including most of Europe & Japan) was the spear with the axe or mace/hammer probably coming in second (including for knights & samurai). The sword was used for backup, for dueling & as a status symbol, but not as a primary weapon of warfare (with a few exceptions).

[keithcurtis]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

In the end, I still maintain it comes down to dramatic license. Very few (if any) of us are playing Historical Medieval Europe Hero. We are mostly playing Fantasy Hero. Swords are pretty much the most common Fantasy weapon. There should be rule support for this. And in fact, there is. FH has a long section about tweaking the weapons list with some excellent suggestions.

In the end, it's your campaign. Make a weapon list that works for you.

 

Keith "Never tell the weapon master you just broke another sword..." Curtis

[Netzilla]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

In the end, I still maintain it comes down to dramatic license. Very few (if any) of us are playing Historical Medieval Europe Hero. We are mostly playing Fantasy Hero. Swords are pretty much the most common Fantasy weapon. There should be rule support for this. And in fact, there is. FH has a long section about tweaking the weapons list with some excellent suggestions.

In the end, it's your campaign. Make a weapon list that works for you.

 

I most definately agree with this point. I was just responding to the idea of the sword being the primary war weapon 'as a matter of history'.

 

In many cultures the sword has become romanticised, and therefore is the primary weapon in folklore, legend and modern fiction. If that's what you're simulating, make swords the most advantageous weapon to use. If you're wanting historic realism, don't.

[Blue Jogger]

The Ultimate Weapon

 

Just because this thread got me thinking...

 

The Ultimate Weapon

Few have more tales than the one about the Ultimate Weapon. Some state that it was a large war axe, a polearm, a sword, a dagger, a swordbreaker, or a whip, but all have some truth to them. It is a beauty to see it in action as it melts seamlessly into exactly what the wielder needs. It never breaks and never needs sharpening. It also incredibly useful for twisting, bending and prying just about anything.

 

3D6 HKA (No Str Min), +1/4 Variable Special Effect (any Weapon Damage)

1" Reach, +2 OCV, +2 DCV

+20 STR (0 END) - Ultimate Unbreakable Lever Action

 

[Dauntless]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

There's something that's not accounted for about axes that makes swords better than them in one resect, which is also why I highly question why an axe has a lower STR min than a sword.

 

When you swing an axe, it takes more force (or more time) to accelerate it if it is the same weight as a sword overall. Why? Simple physics. In physics, when you swing an object in an arc, it's a special case of rotational movement, with the point of rotation being at the end of the lever. In rotational torque, there's something called the Momemnt of Inertia. The Moment of Inertia is really what mass is in rotational movement. Most people are familiar with the expression that Force = mass x acceleration. In rotation objects, there's another hitch. It's actually acceleration x Momemnt of Inertia (which is the change in mass/change in volume). In other words, the Moment of Inertia is the change in density over an object's length.

 

Because an axe has an uneven distribution of weight at the tip, it has a higher change in mass/volume (it's really the derivative of the change in mass respective to the change in volume for every point in the body relative to the rotation's origin). This also means that the greater the length of the axe, the stronger you have to be to wield it. To illustrate, imagine sitting in a spinning chair, and spin in your chair with your arms tucked in. Now spin again at the same speed, but this time fold your arms out...notice how you slow down. That's because you've changed your body's change in mass/change in volume. You applied the same amount of force (the spin), but when you increased the length of the lever arm, you slowed down. There is a catch however...given that a human can constantly accelerate the weapon through the swing, the human therefore has more time to put more energy into the swing...this also means that longer weapons are slower per given strength.

 

So what does this all mean? It means that given an axe and sword of the same weight, and a user with the same strength, the user can accelerate the sword faster than the axe. This has a few ramifications. The first is that the axe is still going to do more damage. Why? Because when the weapon hits a target in a swung arc, only a portion hits and it's this portion that contributes to momentum and kinetic energy. To imagine this, imagine an old fashioned record player spinning away and envision a white line going from the center to the outer rim. Would you rather get hit at the outer rim or towards the center? The angular speed is the same in both instances, but the outer rim carries more force. In an axe, the weight of the head is much greater than the tip of the sword.

 

Some will say, but kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity^2. Since the sword is travelling faster than the axe, it should have more kinetic energy. This is true except remember, since the axe is slower, the user actually has more time to impart more energy into the swing. In other words, given the same time frame, a sword might travel through a 90 degree arc, while the axe might only swing through a 60 degree arc (given both weapons have the same speed and same strength user). Once the axe finally hits...it may take longer, but by the time it hits, the user has more time to put more energy into the swing (remember, power = Force/time). So overall, the axe will do more damage than at sword.

 

But it's slowness and uneven distribution are its drawbacks. First off, since the axe is unbalanced, it is slower. Secondly, once you have swung an axe, it is harder to recover it for another strike. And this is where the sword shines. A sword though not as damaging is faster, and more easily recoverable for another strike or defense. Skill in blocking also relies on these physical principles. One shouldn't try to block an attack near the tip of a weapon, because that's where most of the energy is. Instead, one should try to stop the block close to its pivot point. Swords being better balanced are more accurate and better able to do fine targeting than an axe (because you can also change its movement in-flight more easily). Granted, if you try to do a head-to-head block, the momentum of the axe will push it out of the way more easily.

 

There's one last drawback to an axe...the wooden haft. Wood meeting iron is never a good thing, and blocking with axes is a dangerous thing.

 

So while there may be a "myth" to the sword, it's still a very versatile and potent weapon. It explains why it survived the coming of guns better than the axe did (for combat purposes). So I'll put on my flame-retardant suit and say that swords are overall superior to axes. Axes are more damaging, and they are more difficult to block, but they are also more difficult to block with. But swords are faster, are easier to block with, and more versatile (you can thrust as well as swing, and you can even use some 2H swords like a 2H spear). To be fair, spears are often given short shrift and it was the weapon of choice for many cultures (the Chinese and Irish for example).

 

One must also think of mass combat vs. duelling combat. While the saxon huscarls and the Vikings under Harald Hardrada were known for fighting with axes en masse, axes are difficult to use under such circumstances. The same is true of any swing type of weapon. This is why the strategic use of massed spearmen took place. A group of men tightly packed together made for an impenetrable wall of spear tips. The huscarls came up with a tactic of actually attacking the spears to chop off the tips with a moderate degree of success, but in general, pikemen ruled the field against other infantry. Because of their dense formations, they were very vulnerable to archers (also because they lacked shields).

[Markdoc]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

>>>So while there may be a "myth" to the sword, it's still a very versatile and potent weapon. It explains why it survived the coming of guns better than the axe did (for combat purposes). So I'll put on my flame-retardant suit and say that swords are overall superior to axes. Axes are more damaging, and they are more difficult to block, but they are also more difficult to block with. But swords are faster, are easier to block with, and more versatile (you can thrust as well as swing, and you can even use some 2H swords like a 2H spear). To be fair, spears are often given short shrift and it was the weapon of choice for many cultures (the Chinese and Irish for example).<<<

 

The dangers of generalisation Although light spears were the original weapon of choice, in Ireland the (re)introduction of the Norse style axe by the Galloglaich (Scottish mercenaries) rapidly replaced it until by the 1600's an english writer commented that one "never meets a (irish)man but he has his axe on his shoulder"

 

Likewise, I suspect the sword survived the coming of the gun better than the axe, because the war-axe was a weapon, while the sword was the mark of a gentleman. It's still part of the dress uniform of officers in many modern militaries, though it sees relatively little use in the field

 

Unlike Keith, I've never broken a sword (though I have bent two severely) but I have broken several axes and picks. My own experience is that axes should do more damage than swords (given the caveat that in real life the difference is minimal), but also require higher STR mins: having most of the mass out at the end of a stick requires a bit more brute force to maneuver quickly.

 

cheers, Mark

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Here's my take on the weapons:

 

Axe:

Biggest HKA for weight, low OCV/DCV (maybe even penalties) Incidentally, most peasants have Weapon Familiarity with this weapon.

 

Sword:

Best OCV/DCV, might even be built as a multipower to represent the range of attacks. Lighter swords will suffer Reduced Penetration. They're great for unarmored opponents, but you want the heavier swords to crack armor. Swords might also have a penalty for STR damage added to them, at least compared to axes.

 

Also, I'm not sure that an untrained wielder should get the full OCV/DCV benefits. Swords are tricker to use than axes at least to full advantage, from my limited experience. Axes are a better weapon to give someone untrained in my opinion. I might increase the penalties for not having Weapon Familiarity.

 

Note: quality issues count the most for swords. You should give three sets of stats: poor quality swords, decent quality swords and high quality swords. Swords have flexibility/hardness concerns and balance issues that most of the other weapons here don't have. Swords end up a little more pricey because of that.

 

Hammer:

Comparable HA to the axe for weight, low OCV/DCV, Penetrating (remember that the hammer can transmit its blow even without penetrating the armor). As with the axe, most peasants are likely to have Weapon Familiarity here, and for that matter, there's probably heavy overlap with the axe in terms of skill.

 

Pick:

Lower HKA than an axe, but it gets Armor Piercing as it was designed to punch holes in armor. Again, overlap skill with the axe/hammer to the pick.

 

Spear/Lance/Pike:

Lower HKA than a Pick, but you can add velocity damage when either charging or setting against a charge. It might have problems with adding STR damage as its hard to get your muscles behind an attack as with a chopping weapon. It has reach advantages, though you should give it heavy penalties in enclosed places.

[Old Man]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Swords are easier to wield because of their balance as well as their ability to slash or stab. I guess I just wanted to know why Fantasy Hero didn't take this into account by perhaps giving swords a +1 OCV or a lower STR minimum - that's all.

 

Previous versions of FH did give swords a +1 OCV for precisely this reason. The weapon chart in Fred has no relationship to previous editions and appears to have been written by someone with a poor understanding of basic math, historical accuracy, and game balance. The weapon chart in 5th ed. FH is better, but from a game balance perspective the chart in 1st ed. FH is best.

[JMcL63]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

A lot of good points have been made about power, STR mins and so on. I guess I would just add the following:

1. The mythology attached to swords might have something to do with their being the weapons of the lordly elite in most pre-gunpowder cultures (a sweeping generalisation I'll admit, but I hope my point is clear nonetheless).

2. I would reflect the basic concern of the original poster by giving most swords a +1 OCV at the very least. It all depends on how you design them- you can also design weapons with extra DEX for the initiative count, for example.

[Dauntless]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Swords survived post-gun era partially because of their "genteelness", and partially because of their versatility. Hell, knives survived best of all But I think the biggest reason was because guns eliminated the need for armor, and by making armor obsolete, it took away the axes greater advantage of doing more damage. Swords, being quicker and lighter came in handy as backup weapons to early hand cannons and arqebus type weapons. This gradually found its way into the hands of the aristocrats as well as the educated middle class (quite a few scholars were known to have been duellists as well). Swords are relatively expensive compared to axes, and so have always been a mark of distinction.

 

Generalizations are always fraught with peril, but sometimes they make sense as long as you don't take them too far. While the scottish are probably best known for the claidgh moor (claymore) sword, they too weren't averse to spears, and neither were the Norsemen. The chinese, who call the spear the "king of weapons" also had a penchance for other polearms, and at least under the Qin dynasty really loved archers. Even the Japanese for whom the common myth is that they loved the sword above all else, this generalization is actually erroneous depending on the time frame. Prior to the Heian period (about 1200AD), the mark of the best warrior was how good he was in kyudo (archery). It wasn't until about the Kamakura and Muromachi period that swords became revered to the degree that they were (and was the era of its most legendary swordsmiths). The movie the Last Samurai got it wrong when it said that the Gods created Japan by dipping a sword into the sea...it was actually a spear. Even the word bu as in bushi (bu means "war", so bushi is warrior) is composed of the kanji characters for "to stop" and "spear".

 

I never actually realized that FH had axes with a lower STR min than swords. That's just wrong in my book. It's right that it does more base damage, but it should have a higher STR min. I'd also give it (depending on size) a -1 to OCV only for blocking to represent the high recover times and the slower speed of the axe (which makes it easier for a person to get out of the way, and represents the difficulty of trying to recover from the momentum of the axe swing).

 

EDIT

On second thought, I realize why they gave it a lower STR. By lowering the STR, it makes it easier to add DC for an axe, which makes sense. However, it also makes sense to have axes have a high STR min to account for the fact that it's harder to control an axe, so if you don't have the proper STR, you'll suffer an OCV penalty.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Swords survived post-gun era partially because of their "genteelness", and partially because of their versatility. Hell, knives survived best of all But I think the biggest reason was because guns eliminated the need for armor, and by making armor obsolete, it took away the axes greater advantage of doing more damage. Swords, being quicker and lighter came in handy as backup weapons to early hand cannons and arqebus type weapons. This gradually found its way into the hands of the aristocrats as well as the educated middle class (quite a few scholars were known to have been duellists as well). Swords are relatively expensive compared to axes, and so have always been a mark of distinction.

 

Generalizations are always fraught with peril, but sometimes they make sense as long as you don't take them too far. While the scottish are probably best known for the claidgh moor (claymore) sword, they too weren't averse to spears, and neither were the Norsemen. The chinese, who call the spear the "king of weapons" also had a penchance for other polearms, and at least under the Qin dynasty really loved archers. Even the Japanese for whom the common myth is that they loved the sword above all else, this generalization is actually erroneous depending on the time frame. Prior to the Heian period (about 1200AD), the mark of the best warrior was how good he was in kyudo (archery). It wasn't until about the Kamakura and Muromachi period that swords became revered to the degree that they were (and was the era of its most legendary swordsmiths). The movie the Last Samurai got it wrong when it said that the Gods created Japan by dipping a sword into the sea...it was actually a spear. Even the word bu as in bushi (bu means "war", so bushi is warrior) is composed of the kanji characters for "to stop" and "spear".

 

I never actually realized that FH had axes with a lower STR min than swords. That's just wrong in my book. It's right that it does more base damage, but it should have a higher STR min. I'd also give it (depending on size) a -1 to OCV only for blocking to represent the high recover times and the slower speed of the axe (which makes it easier for a person to get out of the way, and represents the difficulty of trying to recover from the momentum of the axe swing).

 

EDIT

On second thought, I realize why they gave it a lower STR. By lowering the STR, it makes it easier to add DC for an axe, which makes sense. However, it also makes sense to have axes have a high STR min to account for the fact that it's harder to control an axe, so if you don't have the proper STR, you'll suffer an OCV penalty.

A lot of good points in both of your threads. I think that the axe almost qualifies for an AP like the pike. The game designers are doing the best that they can to differentiate between different types of weapons within the granularity of the system. I agree that Axes should be more difficult to block with but at the same time they are nearly impossible to block with a sword too. There was a show on History Channel hosted by the 'techno-mage' from 'crusade' (i can't remember his name) but this very subject was addressed by his team pitting axe welders vs. sword and sheild welders. Axe guys did get tired out but the sword guys were completely defensive until that happened.

[Netzilla]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

One of the ways I've thought about dealing with all of this is by taking the FH weapons and grouping them into 4 different damage effects: Blunt, Chopping, Piercing and Slashing. Then, rework the armor writeups so that they have different ratings vs. each damage type.

 

On the weapons side, each weapon would have a Primary damage type. In some cases (like swords or Axe/Hammer or Hammer/Pick combo heads) there would be an additional damage type that may or may not have the same DC. Slashing weapons would have the highest total DC, but most rigid armors would have their highest DEF vs. slashing anyway (slashing may also be defined as Reduced Pen vs. hard armors, but I'm not sure). Chopping & Blunt would be in the same basic DC range. Piercing would probably have the lowest DC range, but some of those weapons would get the AP advantage (like the pick or armor piercing arrow heads).

 

So, an Axe might be 1.5d6 HKA chopping with the possiblilty of an opposing hammer head that was 1d6 HKA blunt w/ a +1 Stun Multiple. A Broadsword could be 2d6 HKA slashing and 1d6 piercing.

 

Plate armor might be rated as 6B/8C/11P/14S. So, it would take a fairly strong person to get through plate w/ a broadsword, but they'd have a slightly easier time w/ the Axe/Hammer combo. I'd also considered giving each armor slightly lower resistant DEF but adding a small amount of normal defense to help deal with the always-kocked-out-but-never-dead problem that comes up in some folks FH campaigns.

 

Of course, all the above stats are just pulled out of the thin air at the top of my head, but you get the basic idea.

 

I'd also thought about rating armor vs. other common special effects (heat, electricity, acid, etc.). As for the penalties of wearing armor, I thought about PER penalties & counting significant amounts of armor as being 1 or 2 steps higher on the heat effects chart at the back of the book (I can't remember the title of the table), to represent how hot and fatiguing all that stuff gets.

 

Of course, I've had this idea since shortly after 5E came out and have been thus far too lazy to actually do anything about it.

[SirWilliam]

Re: Y R axes better than swords???

 

Took a long hard look at the weapon chart last night and I noticed something. While swords across the board do about 1 dc less than the equivalent axe, swords across the board are the hardest weapons to break. IIRC Swords have 1 more DEF and 1 more BODY than the equivalent axe. Again IIRC, this extends to hammers, and pole arms. Since I've been thinking of working in shield and weapon breakage anyway this just gives me more incentive.