D&D 5E No love for the hand axe?

[Triumph_Fork]

I'm guessing this is probably because in the game, we spend little, if any time on that part of the exploration pillar. We just assume that PCs get the fire going with firewood, ignoring the fact that the worst thing you can do with a sword is try to chop down a tree or split a log

I totally agree. I don't use my master sword to do that crap

After reading your post, it gives me a inspiration to perhaps run a 1shot game and the setting/plot for the game would be more of a survival scenario. For a game like this, you could even ban weapons that aren't considered tools and give players advantage on survival checks while using them, and/or give hefty penalties out of combat for the characters that do use a longsword to chop down a tree. You think that there wouldn't be a blade left after that!

I'll write the game and probably limit it to these few weapons:
- Dagger, Handaxe, Light hammer, Quarterstaff, Sickle, Net.

 

[discosoc]

I think it's time for D&D to get rid of weapon damages entirely. Individual weapons should dictate range and types of special abilities they can use (sneak attack, 2-handed, etc), but actual damage should be based on Class. For example, a Fighter should do more damage with a longs word than a Wizard. You could setup interesting class features for stuff like "Barbarians deal 1d12 damage with 2-handed weapons" that both gives the player more choice in weapons *and* makes for balancing the game much easier. There would be no more Short Sword vs Rapier problems, nor would daggers and staves be neglected.

Not saying WotC will ever do this, but I think it's definitely time for it.

 

[Blue]

I think it's time for D&D to get rid of weapon damages entirely. Individual weapons should dictate range and types of special abilities they can use (sneak attack, 2-handed, etc), but actual damage should be based on Class. For example, a Fighter should do more damage with a longs word than a Wizard. You could setup interesting class features for stuff like "Barbarians deal 1d12 damage with 2-handed weapons" that both gives the player more choice in weapons *and* makes for balancing the game much easier. There would be no more Short Sword vs Rapier problems, nor would daggers and staves be neglected.

Not saying WotC will ever do this, but I think it's definitely time for it.

This is how 13th Age does it. 13th Age is a d20 by Rob Heinsoo (lead designer 4e) and Jonathan Tweet (1 of 3 lead designers D&D 3.0). It was out before 5e but both share a lot of DNA and philosophy.

Your "one handed small" weapon does one set of damage for a wizard, and a very different for a rogue. Your "two-handed heavy or martial" will do more for the barbarian, and that wizard will also have a to-hit penalty. Basically weapons are small / light or simple / heavy or martial and then 1 hand / 2 hands. Each class has their own setup for how much damage those 6 categories do. Same for armor - some classes get more out of armor, or more out of heavy armor, or more out of light armor.

Plus the hand axe will be just as effective as everything else, mechanics don't get in the way of how you envision your character. You pick and describe your weapon - be it a utilitarian hand axe or nunchuck to barbed chain.

 

[Sadras]

I think it's time for D&D to get rid of weapon damages entirely. Individual weapons should dictate range and types of special abilities they can use (sneak attack, 2-handed, etc), but actual damage should be based on Class. For example, a Fighter should do more damage with a longs word than a Wizard. You could setup interesting class features for stuff like "Barbarians deal 1d12 damage with 2-handed weapons" that both gives the player more choice in weapons *and* makes for balancing the game much easier. There would be no more Short Sword vs Rapier problems, nor would daggers and staves be neglected.

Not saying WotC will ever do this, but I think it's definitely time for it.

Fighters already have STR as a primary stat, they have martial weapon proficiency, they gain fighting styles, additional attacks and subclass abilities which improve on their accuracy and damage potential. They also gain access to more feats, which allow them to capitalise even further in combat. They are already much better than wizards with melee weapons.

EDIT: The issue I see with balancing weapons based on a class is when you have a fighter with a two-handed quarterstaff facing a fighter with longsword and shield - and both fighters doing the same amount of damage.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The issue I see with balancing weapons based on a class is when you have a fighter with a two-handed quarterstaff facing a fighter with longsword and shield - and both fighters doing the same amount of damage.

That would depend on how hard they are to hit. IF that shield does not make the fighter any harder to hit or damage, then the balance is fine.

I believe class damage is how Dungeon World does it. A fighter does 1d10 damage, whether they are carrying a shield and sword, a big axe, or a little dagger. The idea is, that the fighter with the little dagger gets more hits in than the fighter with the big axe, so overall they both do 1d10 damage per exchange of blows.

 

[Ancalagon]

This is *very* anecdotal, but in our current game the cleric uses a hand-axe as her main melee weapon (although more likely to use spells), and the now-dead barbarian elf was fond of twin hand-axes (but realized that it was sub optimal for his bezerker build). His death had nothing to do with handaxes, and everything to do with jumping down a well with flames at the bottom...

 

[aco175]

I just read 8 pages of good reading about knife or ax banter and nobody said they would rather have a saw in the woods for fire and shelter over the others.

Mostly I was reading to see if anyone was talking D&D hand ax and I was looking for if people thought it should be a finesse weapon to use Dex instead of Str. This would open it up to more classes to use over something else. Maybe a 1d6 thrown weapon is more power than the rapier problem people talk about. Nobody mentioned being able to use the back of the hand ax as a bludgeoning weapon on skeletons or such.

Flavor-wise I like to go with the hand ax over other weapons for certain builds and when I play dwarves. I see a dwarf their using a hand ax over a rapier or short sword, but practically needs a finesse weapon and dagger doesn't feel as cool.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Flavor-wise I like to go with the hand ax over other weapons for certain builds and when I play dwarves. I see a dwarf their using a hand ax over a rapier or short sword, but practically needs a finesse weapon and dagger doesn't feel as cool.

I generally don't think of dwarves using weapons that use grace rather than force to fight with.

 

[fjw70]

I like using the hand axe as a backup/ranged weapon for my strength based fighters.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The game already has rules for attempting tasks without tools, so perhaps we could apply them to WIS\Survival rolls?

Rule suggestion: If you don't have the proper tools, then rolls are made at disadvantage (and in extreme cases, automatically fail). The proper tools for Survival are fishing kit, hunting trap, mess kit (maybe), tinderbox (or other fire-making ability), and a small blade (any light slashing weapon).

A mess kit includes a small blade suitable for preparing food, but not suitable for making a shelter or preparing firewood.

I'd also rule that a dagger is no good for chopping wood. It is a piercing weapon, after all.