Balancing the Greataxe

[Sindeloke]

Under almost all circumstances, the Greatsword is a better choice than the Greataxe. It has a higher average damage, it has a higher minimum damage, it makes better use of the fighting style. Even an orc barbarian has to wait for two thirds of the game to be over for the extra damage on those incredibly infrequent greataxe crits to catch up with the reliable superiority of the sword.

The obvious solution, which I know some people use, is just to let greataxes use 2d6 or 1d12, player's choice. It's fair, of course, but I personally don't like it. Monotony is balanced, but it's monotonous! I want the greataxe to feel different from the greatsword, there's too little distinction between weapons as it is. I really like the flavor of the sword as accurate and reliable but more likely to do average damage, with the greatsword as swingy and risky but with a strong payoff. In particular, I like the way the swingy flavor of the greataxe compliments the swingy, raging barbarian, its historical wielder, while the sword seems tailored to the consistent, professional fighter.

Unfortunately, in some kind of recognition of that, they baked the inherent property of the 3.path sword (increased crit range) into the fighter class and put the inherent property of the 3.path axe (increased crit damage) in the barbarian! So now improving axe crit damage, while consistent with the "risky but rewarding" idea, would actually make it better for fighters than barbs.

So what can be done to balance the two without losing their unique properties, or at the very least, make greataxe directly appealing to low-level barbarians? Making rage damage in some way related to base weapon damage could work, but I can't see an obvious way to do that without making rage itself too strong. The greataxe could be made swingier and mathematically equal to the greatsword with some screwy math like "1d12, +1 if the result is >6" (1 lower or 1 higher potential damage, same average) but that seems a bit needlessly complicated.

I dunno. Thoughts are welcome.

[Gastronomie]

Honestly, if I were the DM I'd just say 2d6, but if you don't want that, "allowing re-rolls of damage dice 1~4 for Barbarians with Greataxe (only one re-roll per attack)" would be good enough, and "unique" as well.

[pwykersotz]

I'm just brainstorming, but you could have it be that if the attack is greater than AC by 5 or more it does max damage, but if it fails by 5 or more it does minimum damage. That wouldn't add much math but it does make it swingy.

[thebiglost1]

Honestly, if I were the DM I'd just say 2d6, but if you don't want that, "allowing re-rolls of damage dice 1~4 for Barbarians with Greataxe (only one re-roll per attack)" would be good enough, and "unique" as well.

Unless they MC they can't get GWF so making this baseline would shift it entirely towards great axe.

[Belac93]

I personally feel like greataxes were made to be barbarian weapons. Sure, in most situations, they are worse than a greatsword. But, once you get brutal critical, they are amazing.

On a greatsword crit, with brutal critical I, you will do 5d6 damage, or an average of 17.5. On a grataxe crit with brutal critical I, you do 3d12, or an average of 18.5. With more brutal criticals, this increases dramatically. With brutal critical 3, greatswords will be doing 7d6, or 24.5 average, while greataxes will be doing 5d12, or 32.5 average damage.

Anyway, axes make more sense for barbarians.

[bid]

On a greatsword crit, with brutal critical I, you will do 5d6 damage, or an average of 17.5. On a grataxe crit with brutal critical I, you do 3d12, or an average of 18.5. With more brutal criticals, this increases dramatically. With brutal critical 3, greatswords will be doing 7d6, or 24.5 average, while greataxes will be doing 5d12, or 32.5 average damage.
You don't crit often enough to compensate, except at high level.

- greatsword hit = 2d6+5, crit adds 2d6, each brutal adds 1d6
- greataxe hit = 1d12+5, crit adds 1d12, each brutal adds 1d12
- difference hit = .5, crit = .5, each brutal = -3

- brutal 1 = 1:5 = greatsword better on 14+, greataxe is better on 16+
- brutal 2 = 1:11 = greatsword better on 8+, greataxe is better on 10+
- brutal 3 = 1:17 = greatsword better on 2+, greataxe is better on 4+

Considering you hit on 6+ because of reckless attack, that's too little too late.
- greatsword hit = 2d6+5 * 15/20, crit adds 5d6 * 1/20 = 9 + 0.875 = 9.875
- greataxe hit = 1d12+5 * 15/20, crit adds 4d12 * 1/20 = 8.625 + 1.3 = 9.925

[PeteNutButter]

We discussed this a while back in some length:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478485-Put-Down-The-Greataxe!-Brutal-Critical-Discussion&highlight=greataxe

You pointing out that champion fighter benefits more is an ok consequence IMO.

[bid]

We discussed this a while back in some length:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478485-Put-Down-The-Greataxe!-Brutal-Critical-Discussion&highlight=greataxe

You pointing out that champion fighter benefits more is an ok consequence IMO.
Yes we did, nice thread you started. I think the earliest axe gets ahead is half-orc barbarian 9 / champion 3.

Anyway, it's only .5 damage out of 12. Don't let it ruin your RP concept.

[Talamare]

You could reduce GS and Maul to d6+d4

[djreynolds]

Have a great axe do both slashing and bludgeoning damage. That way you do not have carry around a great sword and maul.

[Talamare]

You could reduce GS and Maul to d6+d4

1d10 = 5.5
1d6+1d4 = 6
1d12 = 6.5

With reroll 1 or 2
d10 = 5.5+5.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 /10= 6.3
1d6+1d4 = 3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6 / 6 +++ 2.5+2.5+3+4 / 4 = 4.16+3 = 7.16
d12 = 6.5+6.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12 /12 = 7.33

So, d6+d4 = Very stable damage, but not the highest possible, nor the highest average
and d12 = Extremely swingy damage, but highest potential and highest potential damage

[JellyPooga]

I've always "balanced" the greataxe with the notion that it makes a better tool.

- I wouldn't, for example, be happy using a greatsword as a lever; too flexible, too brittle. A Greataxe, on the other hand, has a nice sturdy handle.

- I know a war-axe is not a tool-axe and has significant differences in design, but a war-axe is still an axe and is by definition better than a sword for the likes of chopping wood, ropes or doors.

- Smaller cutting surface = easier to sharpen and it's easier to keep dry. Rust Monsters would go for the sword wielder first as well, all other things being equal.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'm just brainstorming, but you could have it be that if the attack is greater than AC by 5 or more it does max damage, but if it fails by 5 or more it does minimum damage. That wouldn't add much math but it does make it swingy.

If it fails to hit AC ( by 5 or more ) it misses already. So it's really unbalanced

Seriously ? Why the greatsword ? Why not, say, the trident

[Boci]

If it fails to hit AC ( by 5 or more ) it misses already. So it's really unbalanced

I imagine they meant to say if you hit by 4 or less. So against an AC of 18, on an attack roll of 18-22 you deal 1 damage, but on 23+ you deal 12 damage.

[Talamare]

I imagine they meant to say if you hit by 4 or less. So against an AC of 18, on an attack roll of 18-22 you deal 1 damage, but on 23+ you deal 12 damage.

He said, if it fails by 5 ... So if its 18 AC, and you roll 12~17. You still deal 1 damage + all modifiers. Insane buff

[Boci]

He said, if it fails by 5 ... So if its 18 AC, and you roll 12~17. You still deal 1 damage + all modifiers. Insane buff

I know what they said, but since that would be too powerful, I was assuming they meant dealing 1 damage on a 18-22, since that would be more balanced.

[pwykersotz]

I know what they said, but since that would be too powerful, I was assuming they meant dealing 1 damage on a 18-22, since that would be more balanced.

This is the correct interpretation of my words, which were very wrongly stated. Thanks, I was low on caffeine at the time of posting. :smallsmile:

[Markoff Chainey]

In my opinion, the weapon table is a big disappointment for a commercial rpg.

If you look into the details and put some measurements on the weapons abilities and damage, you will see that it just does not fit together and many weapons are nothing but trap options.

Here is what we use at our table: weapontable (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAnGT2ETnb9mlRwNeUo3zr77rptt50HBLa7EZz5HdlA/edit?usp=sharing) - on the first tab you find the table itself and the rest is some calculations and the old table.

Basically, we added two "half-steps" in the damage ladder (2d4 and 2d6), that allowed for a better fine-tunig and all the weapons were brought in line with the 4 "iconic" weapons: dagger, shortsword, longsword and rapier. - all of those scored highest when we applied our scoring model. And we changed a few things like the QStaff being versatile is stupid, it would allow for dual-wielding QStaffs or wielding it with a shield..

Feedback is appreciated.

Cheers!

[soldersbushwack]

Not allowing two-weapon fighting with quarterstaffs means you can't be Gandalf and do two-weapon fighting with an Arcane Focus Staff and a sword (unless maybe you think Arcane Focus Staffs are more like clubs than quarterstaffs?)

[EvilAnagram]

Make a one or a two on a Greataxe be a 3. Its average damage is only slightly below that of a Grratsword, but it's less noticeable and catches up sooner with barbarians.

[bid]

Make a one or a two on a Greataxe be a 3. Its average damage is only slightly below that of a Grratsword, but it's less noticeable and catches up sooner with barbarians.
Minimum 4 yields the same average.

[EvilAnagram]

Minimum 4 yields the same average.

There you go. You still get the fun of rolling giant dice, but the two weapons are balanced overall. And with GWF, the greatsword pulls ahead slightly, so it's still preferable to the classic knight classes while the axe is preferred by barbarians.

[Ewhit]

Why stop there
All Martial weapons should be listed as
1. Versitile weapons same damage 1d8/1d10
2. All heavy two handed 1d12
3. All single hand 1d8
Why? Because the only difference should be in cosmetic look for the weapon.
Why would I want a scimitar or short sword 1d6 finess light when I can get rapier 1d8 finess.
The other 2 might be light for bonus attack but only need 1. And if you go twf most likely your getting duel weapon feat to use same style weapon non light. And to get +1 ac and you went twf fighting style to get ability mod bonus for both weapons
So weapon choice is either about damage mini max or cosmetic look you want so to cover both the above system would be better

[Markoff Chainey]

Why stop there
All Martial weapons should be listed as
1. Versitile weapons same damage 1d8/1d10
2. All heavy two handed 1d12
3. All single hand 1d8
Why? Because the only difference should be in cosmetic look for the weapon.
Why would I want a scimitar or short sword 1d6 finess light when I can get rapier 1d8 finess.
The other 2 might be light for bonus attack but only need 1. And if you go twf most likely your getting duel weapon feat to use same style weapon non light. And to get +1 ac and you went twf fighting style to get ability mod bonus for both weapons
So weapon choice is either about damage mini max or cosmetic look you want so to cover both the above system would be better

the answer is diversity... why have 6 attributes and not just 2?

the problem is that in order to create diversity, every given option must be an equal valuable option within the game world, otherwise a (knowledgeable) player will never choose the inferior one.

if you scroll up, you find a slightly altered weapon table where every weapon has its own reason of existence.

[JellyPooga]

the answer is diversity... why have 6 attributes and not just 2?

the problem is that in order to create diversity, every given option must be an equal valuable option within the game world, otherwise a (knowledgeable) player will never choose the inferior one.

if you scroll up, you find a slightly altered weapon table where every weapon has its own reason of existence.

Bolded for emphasis; this is simply not a given truth. Yes, you can go down the route of "all weapons must be balanced", but if you're doing that, then there should be no functional difference. If there's to be difference at all, then there must be superior and inferior options, because frankly, some weapons are inferior. No-one is going to argue that an improvised club made from a chair-leg is inferior to a sword. Likewise, there are reasons why some weapons found a small niche; either they were too hard to learn to use effectively or they were literally a less effective weapon. A weapon table of the sort we find in D&D, whichever edition, should have so-called "trap" options; some weapons are better than others. If you want the "best" option, then yeah, you'll never use a dagger unless you have to. If you want to be the guy who only fights with daggers though, then you'll just have so suck up the fact that a knife is a bad weapon compared to a longsword.

[Markoff Chainey]

...you can go down the route of "all weapons must be balanced", but if you're doing that, then there should be no functional difference...

This is why I wrote "equal valuable option" instead of "equal option". IMO a weapon with a unique name and line in the weapon table must be better than any other in a specific scenario that is broad enough to justify that it is included into the rules. The fine line is debateable of course, but a weapon like the trident that is so outclassed that nobody would ever buy it (and therefor nobody would ever invent and forge it) or two weapons that are rule-specifically identical but for their name, do not justify a line in the weapon table.

Of course, some weapons are better than others, but if you boil it down, you can look at a weapon like a character. Both have attributes and those define strengths and weaknesses. Diversity is fun, but if a character class is much inferior to another, those will be balanced. Damage, reach, finesse, versatile, martial, simple, throwing, etc. ... those are the attributes that define a weapon and as a character has certain points that he can spend on certain attributes that define him, a weapon should work more or less the same way. So I am not saying they must be all equal, but every weapon must be equally valuable for a certain character build or context.

[JellyPooga]

but if you boil it down, you can look at a weapon like a character.

Hmm, I would tend to disagree. I don't think it's necessary to think all weapons must be the equal, even if only for a certain build. If we're to imagine weapons as characters, I'd make the analogy that whilst some weapons are PC's, others must be NPC's. Yeah, some will be good weapons, whether they're good for everyone or for a certain build (e.g. finesse weapons); these are the Player Character weapons; they're the ones that players actually use because they have the choice. Others, though, are not so good, not so important. Maybe a niche build could utilise them, but on the whole, they're just not as good; these are your NPC weapons; the ones that have to exist to make the world make sense, but that doesn't mean they're as good as the weapons the PC's are choosing. NPC's don't have the choice, so can and will use inferior weapons. PC's sometimes have choice taken away from them and it can be fun to struggle with these kind of dilemmas. Make all weapons equal and you take away that particular GMing device.

[RickAllison]

Really, it makes no sense that some weapons are inferior in every way. Tridents and spears are the epitome of this, as they do the same damage and type, same thrown range, same Versatile damage, the spear weights a pound less, and the spear is a fifth of the price of the trident. I can get that tridents don't need to have many mechanical benefits over the spear, but there should be something, anything to give a reason why tridents exist when currently they make no sense.

[Ewhit]

My point is just leave it alone unless you going to house rule it because someone is upset that the great axe doesn't do as much damage as the greatsword and they want the great axe visual with their character but want the max damage dice of the greatsword

[JumboWheat01]

Really, it makes no sense that some weapons are inferior in every way. Tridents and spears are the epitome of this, as they do the same damage and type, same thrown range, same Versatile damage, the spear weights a pound less, and the spear is a fifth of the price of the trident. I can get that tridents don't need to have many mechanical benefits over the spear, but there should be something, anything to give a reason why tridents exist when currently they make no sense.

I'm away from my book, but I do know that tridents get to ignore the disadvantage when fighting underwater. I can't remember if spears do as well.

It would be nice if more weapons are equal, after all, all barbarians should be swinging a greataxe around, not some fancy-shmancy greatsword. But at least there is a bit of sense there. A greatsword is a massive length of steal with a two-handed grip at the end, while a greataxe is a massive stick of wood with deliciously large curved blades on one end. A greatsword's 2d6 shows that you have a good chance of hitting the blade, since it is most of the weapon, while a greataxe's 1d12 shows that you could whiff your swing and smack with the handle. An embarrassing hit.

Plus, if all weapons of a type had the same die, what would we do with all these awesome, funky shape dice?

[RickAllison]

I'm away from my book, but I do know that tridents get to ignore the disadvantage when fighting underwater. I can't remember if spears do as well.

It would be nice if more weapons are equal, after all, all barbarians should be swinging a greataxe around, not some fancy-shmancy greatsword. But at least there is a bit of sense there. A greatsword is a massive length of steal with a two-handed grip at the end, while a greataxe is a massive stick of wood with deliciously large curved blades on one end. A greatsword's 2d6 shows that you have a good chance of hitting the blade, since it is most of the weapon, while a greataxe's 1d12 shows that you could whiff your swing and smack with the handle. An embarrassing hit.

Plus, if all weapons of a type had the same die, what would we do with all these awesome, funky shape dice?

Spears get that as well.

Greataxes do trade the swinginess and one extra pound for being 20 gp cheaper. So greataxes do have an advantage over greatswords (if one that matters less and less with levels)!

[Kurt Kurageous]

You want to balance the greataxe vs greatsword?

Use any idea listed in this post.
Consider changing the dice to 3d4.
Use a different crit rule (automatic max damage plus a roll of the dice you would anyway).
Allow it to do either/both SLA and BLU damage types. I'd consider that for both g'swords and g'axes myself! Other candidates include the morningstar for PIE and BLU damage.
Work out the DPR, shake the very foundations of the universe by unbalancing it. It's your game.

But remember that we need to accept some RAW as unsatisfying or not perfectly mathematically balanced, optimized, tooled, etc. The game is rarely played such that the only thing that matters is the probability. If you want that, there are several computer games now on the market that handle all the messy details.

Or consider flipping the script. Maybe in 6e WotC will conclude that the difference between most weapons is little more than fluff. Beyond the current palette of attributes (proficiency, properties and damage type), assign each weapon a strength limitation if needed and a nonzero damage modifier if needed based on it's likelihood of delivering a catastrophic blow to the default target, a human body. For example, great weapons might have the heavy attribute, a STR 13-15 restriction like armors, and a +1 to +3 damage modifier. A spear has no STR restriction and is +0 for being an effective combination of mass/weight and metal. The quarterstaff would also have no STR restriction but have a -1 damage for inefficient mass use and no pointy parts. This doesn't make the q-staff useless, it's just inferior at delivering an instantly fatal blow to a human body.

I propose the dice rolled for damage should depend on the user of the weapon, not the weapon itself. A novice non-martial user might roll a d4 for damage for any weapon they use. A more proficient user (low level martial class?) would roll a d6, higher skilled a d8, etc. Call these die levels or something like that. More than one die can be rolled for especially skilled users or in special circumstances. Die levels and numbers rolled can account for size differences better than 5e does.

Consider the dagger. In this system, a dagger might have a -1 or -2 damage modifier, but in the hands of a murder-surgeon it could still catastrophic damage. A higher level dex fighter with a rapier would easily overcome a -1 or -2 to damage when rolling something like 2d10 damage dice. Missile weapons would have damage mods based on range and mass. Assuming a skilled user can hit a more vulnerable target, they use a higher die level die.

This mechanic is somewhat already in place. Consider simple and martial weapon availability to different classes. One of the main features of the martial classes is they get to use d8, d10, or d12 martial weapons which roll at least a die level higher than simple weapons. But this doesn't scale further. I believe this is a design flaw inherent to all martial classes in DnD. Spells do follow this mechanic. Higher level spells general mean more dice or higher level dice. Why else is Magic Missile, far more accurate than any arrow, only a D4 and not a D8? In the Monster Manual, great weapons in the in the hands of certain large monsters get 2x dice, so shouldn't everyone get at least a dice level up or 2x dice vs smaller, and lose a level or a die vs a bigger foe?

To paraphrase Chuck Yeager, it's the warrior, not the weapon, that is dangerous. So let's treat it that way in 6e, or in your campaign now.

I will consider researching and writing the damage mods and the damage die level rules for 5e if there is an overwhelming positive response to this post.

[JoeJ]

Really, it makes no sense that some weapons are inferior in every way. Tridents and spears are the epitome of this, as they do the same damage and type, same thrown range, same Versatile damage, the spear weights a pound less, and the spear is a fifth of the price of the trident. I can get that tridents don't need to have many mechanical benefits over the spear, but there should be something, anything to give a reason why tridents exist when currently they make no sense.

They exist because they're paired with nets in gladiatorial combat.

[Talamare]

Allow Great Axe to reroll 1/2/3 and it will be a good bump

[PeteNutButter]

Spears get that as well.

Greataxes do trade the swinginess and one extra pound for being 20 gp cheaper. So greataxes do have an advantage over greatswords (if one that matters less and less with levels)!

While the Maul is equal to the greatsword and cheaper than both.

Now rerolling the low numbers on the greataxe is a poor option, because it devalues the multiclassed barbarian, since it already exists in the fighting style. Making an ability (the fighting style) that is supposed to make you good at swinging big weapons useless if you happen to pick up a greataxe seems like poor design.

Furthermore while we all have stereotyped images that barbarians use axes and fighters swords, that is no reason to pigeon whole them. In fiction, Conan (a pretty famous barbarian) uses a sword, while some odd characters like the Green Knight (OoA Paladin? LN/LE?) uses a great axe. Forcing classes to use a specific weapon to be optimal is a sure way to make everyone crunch out factory made cliche characters for every table.

I feel like the whole idea behind this thread should be to prevent that.

[RickAllison]

While the Maul is equal to the greatsword and cheaper than both.

And here we start seeing the issue :smallbiggrin:

Arguably the reason is that greataxe is supposed to augment the Brutal Critical feature (as was earlier stated) and that slashing damage was judged to be much more valuable (which is debatable...)

[PeteNutButter]

And here we start seeing the issue :smallbiggrin:

Arguably the reason is that greataxe is supposed to augment the Brutal Critical feature (as was earlier stated) and that slashing damage was judged to be much more valuable (which is debatable...)

That was the entire point to my earlier article I linked above. At that point (with brutal crit features) it is not even a trap, it's like a super trap. It tricks a rather well informed player into thinking they are finally at an advantage when using a greataxe, but in reality the sword still has the upper hand. :smallfrown:

[RickAllison]

That was the entire point to my earlier article I linked above. At that point (with brutal crit features) it is not even a trap, it's like a super trap. It tricks a rather well informed player into thinking they are finally at an advantage when using a greataxe, but in reality the sword still has the upper hand. :smallfrown:

Would it off-balance things to give greataxes a boost to crit-range? So a barbarian could crit on a 19, while a Champion could crit on a 17? I'm not much for homebrewing, so I'm at a loss.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Another thing I've been wondering about:

Would the Greataxe be overpowered with a 1d10+2 damage value? By itself this doesn't look too bad, but then I'd have to decide how to adjudicate critical hits. Would they add another d10 (only) or an extra d10+2? (I'm leaning towards just the extra d10.) The same question goes for the extra dice from Brutal Critical features.

Weird math note: 1d10+2 has the same min/max as 3d4, but its average is a point higher. FWIW.

[EvilAnagram]

Another thing I've been wondering about:

Would the Greataxe be overpowered with a 1d10+2 damage value? By itself this doesn't look too bad, but then I'd have to decide how to adjudicate critical hits. Would they add another d10 (only) or an extra d10+2? (I'm leaning towards just the extra d10.) The same question goes for the extra dice from Brutal Critical features.

Weird math note: 1d10+2 has the same min/max as 3d4, but its average is a point higher. FWIW.
I feel like fixes that take away the visceral pleasure of dropping a d12 on the table should be avoided. It is a precious thing, that feeling, and we should preserve it at all costs.

[PeteNutButter]

I feel like fixes that take away the visceral pleasure of dropping a d12 on the table should be avoided. It is a precious thing, that feeling, and we should preserve it at all costs.

Agreed. I'd say just let it deal an extra d12 on a crit. It keeps the spirit of the weapon, and gives some incentive to use it. Yeah it makes champions want to use it, but oh well.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I feel like fixes that take away the visceral pleasure of dropping a d12 on the table should be avoided. It is a precious thing, that feeling, and we should preserve it at all costs.

If you really love the d12, then yeah. (Or is that just hyperbole?)

But I thought this whole Greataxe debate started because the d12 was not as good (mechanically) as 2d6?

[Knaight]

No-one is going to argue that an improvised club made from a chair-leg is inferior to a sword.


I think most people will. I'm also guessing that this is the opposite of what you meant to say, and with the opposite statement, that pretty much holds.


Likewise, there are reasons why some weapons found a small niche; either they were too hard to learn to use effectively or they were literally a less effective weapon. A weapon table of the sort we find in D&D, whichever edition, should have so-called "trap" options; some weapons are better than others. If you want the "best" option, then yeah, you'll never use a dagger unless you have to. If you want to be the guy who only fights with daggers though, then you'll just have so suck up the fact that a knife is a bad weapon compared to a longsword.

Putting aside the realism argument here (where basically everyone had a knife on them as a sidearm, suggesting that maybe they were pretty useful at least in that role), having some weapons be better than others in literally every regard forces the question of why those other ones are even manufactured. It's one thing if there's an advantage like the generally crappier one being cheaper, or the generally crappier one being available locally whereas the other isn't, or any number of other factors beyond the quality of the weapon - those make sense, and while a PC is probably never going to choose to fight with a club, them showing up in the hands of peasant rebellions that couldn't get ahold of many actual maces makes a lot of sense.

Take that improvised club made from a chair-leg. When it comes up, there's pretty good odds that it was the weapon chosen from the chair-leg club, the broken-bottle dagger, and other similar things. That's a viable niche, and it makes sense that it would be seen in that context. It appearing on the wall of an armory or in a marketplace for weapons makes no sense whatsoever.

[Socratov]

And here we start seeing the issue :smallbiggrin:

Arguably the reason is that greataxe is supposed to augment the Brutal Critical feature (as was earlier stated) and that slashing damage was judged to be much more valuable (which is debatable...)


please note that at lvl 9 a greatsword crit is 2d6+2d6 (crit double) +1d6 brutal critical. avg of 17,5
for a greataxe that would make: 1d12 +1d12 (crit) +1d12 crit. avg of 19,5. So yeah, brutal critical does make (in the case of crits) the greataxe viable over the greatsword.
No crits the greatsword is on average up 0,5 dmg. In the case of 5% crtit chance in that makes the following expected value:

halfork < lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 9

0.95 * 7 + 0.05 * 17.5 = 6.65 + 0.875 = 7.525
0.95 * 6.5 + 0.05 * 19.5 = 6.175 + 0.975 = 7.150

So not yet, but let's add another die:

halfork lvl 9 or !halfork lvl 13

7.525 + 0.05 * 3.5 = 7.525 + 0.175 = 7.7
7.150 + 0.05 * 6.5 = 7.150 + 0.325 = 7.475

We are getting closer, so we add one more die:

halfork lvl 13or !halfork lvl 17

7.700 + 0.175 = 7.875
7.475 + 0.325 = 7.800

we are talking almost no distinction now. Let's add one more for good measure:

halfork lvl 17

7.875 + 0.175 = 8.050
7.800 + 0.325 = 8.125

So a halfork as a lvl 17 barbarian can pull ahead with a greataxe. In this case I'd argue that if you want to reward greataxe users allow the great weapons (greatsword, greataxe and dire maul) to crit on 19 AND 20 instead of only on 20. This allows for a lower steady damage output, but to shine on crits (as opposed to dual wielders etc.)

In the game this is easy to justify as a big hunk of metal, if it hits, it hits you hard and will not only slice or do impact damage, it will utterly wreck you.

Please see my recommendation from the thread earlier linked.

Though to be fair, the difference between the two is extremely little. The differences are more for flavour anyway and I think that in the randomness that is rolling dice, that you won't find a real meaningful difference.

[JellyPooga]

I think most people will. I'm also guessing that this is the opposite of what you meant to say, and with the opposite statement, that pretty much holds.

Meh, pedantics. I didn't say "no-one will argue for [this case]", I said "no-one will argue [this case] at all". No-one will argue for it because they don't need to; the argument is so strong that there isn't a valid counter argument. No argument = no arguing on either side. :smallwink:


basically everyone had a knife on them as a sidearm, suggesting that maybe they were pretty useful at least in that role

This doesn't make it a better weapon than a sword. Everyone had a knife because it's a useful tool, not because it's a superior weapon. If knives were equitable with swords, no-one would bother with the heavier and more cumbersome sword.


[a chair leg] appearing on the wall of an armory or in a marketplace for weapons makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree; you're not going to see a chair-leg on the blacksmiths wall'o'weapons-for-sale...but you probably won't see a wooden club or staff on that wall either because the blacksmith doesn't make wooden weapons, he make steel ones. You likely won't see a longbow either, despite it being a very effective weapon, or arrows, despite the fact that he made the arrow-heads, because he doesn't make arrows; that's a fletchers job. This doesn't mean those weapons don't exist.

It is all about context. You don't need a table of improvised weapons, because anything can be an improvised weapon, so the ruling that says "it deals damage appropriate to its nearest equivalent" does the job...as long as you have a comprehensive list of actual weapons to compare it to.

The fact that a weapon won't get chosen under ideal circumstances doesn't mean it's not a valid weapon. A sword is better than a club, otherwise swords would never have been invented, but a club is still a weapon and it should absolutely not be as good as a sword outside of very particular circumstances.

If you want to differentiate between "A-list" weapons and "B-list" ones and then further, also have a table for "Improvised" weapons, go ahead. It seems a little pointless to me, but those B-listers are still weapons, even if we segregate them from the "optimal" choice weapons.

[RickAllison]

This doesn't make it a better weapon than a sword. Everyone had a knife because it's a useful tool, not because it's a superior weapon. If knives were equitable with swords, no-one would bother with the heavier and more cumbersome sword.

On a side note, knives weren't just useful tools; stick a dagger in your boot and you always have a weapon. I know that this statement is a given one, but it gives a justification for daggers to exist even when everything else seems like a stronger choice.

[JellyPooga]

On a side note, knives weren't just useful tools; stick a dagger in your boot and you always have a weapon. I know that this statement is a given one, but it gives a justification for daggers to exist even when everything else seems like a stronger choice.

That's just the point I'm trying to make; everyone had a knife because it was small, easy to carry and was useful for other things than fighting, not because it was a good weapon. It was a weapon, yes, but an inherently inferior one to a sword, all other things being equal.

IF the dagger was made equal to the sword, then there would be little to no justification for the sword existing. The weapon table should have inequality because some weapons are better than others.

[JakOfAllTirades]

That's just the point I'm trying to make; everyone had a knife because it was small, easy to carry and was useful for other things than fighting, not because it was a good weapon. It was a weapon, yes, but an inherently inferior one to a sword, all other things being equal.

IF the dagger was made equal to the sword, then there would be little to no justification for the sword existing. The weapon table should have inequality because some weapons are better than others.

OK, I'm convinced that a greatsword should be superior to a dagger, for obvious reasons.

The hard part is convincing anyone that a greatsword should be superior to a greataxe.

Why is that the case, exactly?

[Tanarii]

Besides Fighting style for Paladins/Fighters & Barbarians Brutal Critical, what makes one or the other significantly superior?

.5 extra dpr is minimal enough to be a non issue. What matters, outside of class features, is swing. And that's a personal choice as to risk.

[Knaight]

This doesn't make it a better weapon than a sword. Everyone had a knife because it's a useful tool, not because it's a superior weapon. If knives were equitable with swords, no-one would bother with the heavier and more cumbersome sword.
As a weapon, having a knife and a sword is generally better. Under most circumstances you'll be using the sword, but there are cases like presses that get way too pushed in, grappling situations (particularly against heavy armor) where you pretty much need to get someone on the ground and down and the knife might help with that, issues where your sword is just out of position because someone with a shorter weapon has hooked it and now you need to pull something else to stab them, etc.



I agree; you're not going to see a chair-leg on the blacksmiths wall'o'weapons-for-sale...but you probably won't see a wooden club or staff on that wall either because the blacksmith doesn't make wooden weapons, he make steel ones. You likely won't see a longbow either, despite it being a very effective weapon, or arrows, despite the fact that he made the arrow-heads, because he doesn't make arrows; that's a fletchers job. This doesn't mean those weapons don't exist.
You'll still likely see it sold, just not by a blacksmith, and this applies to all of the weapons listed. There will also be some advantages, starting with how the club is pretty cheap, which is particularly nice if you need to do something like buy 20 of them, in the hopes that you and 19 people with decent clubs are more effective than you with a sword and 19 people with chunks of cobblestone or something (which, under 5e rules, will almost certainly be true). Stuff like that makes sense on the weapon table, particularly because costs are listed, and the costs listed for clubs and such are generally significantly lower than those for maces.

What wouldn't make sense is something like a wooden tipped, fire hardened spear which is identical to a normal spear, except for the part where it costs more; this is about where the trident is.

[Tanarii]

Stuff like that makes sense on the weapon table, particularly because costs are listed, and the costs listed for clubs and such are generally significantly lower than those for maces.Prices are also relevant to how long it takes to craft. Which for a decent club takes about 10 minutes, plus access to tools and material (ie a big stick). Or for a warclub or quarterstaff about 20 minutes. (Assuming crafting is 8 hour days.)

Meanwhile a spear takes over an hour and a half, and a mace takes a whole day.

[Talamare]

Besides Fighting style for Paladins/Fighters & Barbarians Brutal Critical, what makes one or the other significantly superior?

.5 extra dpr is minimal enough to be a non issue. What matters, outside of class features, is swing. And that's a personal choice as to risk.



1d6+1d6 = 7
1d12 = 6.5

With reroll 1 or 2
1d6+1d6 = 3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6 *2 = 4.16 *2 = 8.32
d12 = 6.5+6.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12 /12 = 7.33



1 full dpr with fighting style is fairly significant, easiest fix would be to make the fighting style allow GA to reroll 12AND3, bumping GA to 7.625 on a non crit
One may say, Well GA is still behind, but when we factor in Brutal Crits
Assuming 50% Hit Chance and 5% Crit Chance
d12 old = 7.33 * 3 = 21.99 * .05 = 1.09 + 3.66 = 4.75
d12 new = 7.625 * 3 = 22.875 * .05 = 1.14 + 3.81 = 4.95
d6 = 4.16 * 5 = 20.8 * .05 = 1.04 + 4.16 = 5.2