Does a Great Axe do 2.5x the Damage of a Dagger?

[GMMichael]

When you make a judgment on how lethal a weapon is, and then express that judgment in terms of dice, something interesting happens: you can compare how lethal a weapon is in terms of how lethal another weapon is.

In the titular example, chopping someone with a great axe is just as damaging to the human body (psyche?) as stabbing that someone 2.5 times with a dagger. (These particular numbers are based on my system of tiny weapons using a d4, and two-handed weapons using a d10).

According to the Gallagher test, a watermelon agrees with the above findings. But is it fair to treat humans and watermelons the same? What about a steel-backed dire turtle?

In my games, the 2.5x difference only applies in combat (mode), and relies on the logic that says a machine gun will kill someone much faster than a pistol will. It's a sort of life-expectancy statement, but it's also a nod toward Damage-as-Meat; just ask the watermelon.

How many dagger stabs equal a great axe chop in your game? Do you treat humans and watermelons the same?

 

[Umbran]

In the titular example, chopping someone with a great axe is just as damaging to the human body (psyche?) as stabbing that someone 2.5 times with a dagger. (These particular numbers are based on my system of tiny weapons using a d4, and two-handed weapons using a d10).

A d4 of damage comes up, on average, as 2.5 points.

A d10 of damage comes up, on average, as 5.5 points.

So, the axe is 2.2 times as much, not 2.5.

 

[GMMichael]

So, the axe is 2.2 times as much, not 2.5.

And a Final Fantasy 4 Mithril Knife does +20, while a Dwarf Axe does +64.

So, the axe is 3.2 times as much, not 2.2.

 

[Emerikol]

I think the system is devised to embrace the idea of tradeoffs. If you have two people going into a straight up fight in an open area and offer them both a sword or a dagger, anyone choosing the dagger is a fool. It's not really because a sword is more lethal than the dagger. Giving it more damage though makes you choose the sword which is what they want in terms of incentives. It makes you make the same decision people who fight with those things would make.

Now, this concept applies to humans and most humanoids, I'd say even Ogres. What it doesn't apply to though is heavily armored dragons. In such a situation, the odds you will kill a dragon with a sword is vanishingly small but with a dagger it's all but impossible. So in that case a Dragon is a watermelon in a sense a humanoid is not.

 

[aco175]

Is there an argument about what HP is here? There is another thread of what HP means and represents, so maybe depending on how one looks at it, may mean that it is ok to deal 2.whatever more damage. If it is actual just cutting meat, than the axe should be more.

I never thought about a giant axe vs. a dagger, but do remember speed factor and how a dagger is so much faster to use than a giant axe. Not sure if that factors into the amount of damage either.

 

[Umbran]

I think the system is devised to embrace the idea of tradeoffs. If you have two people going into a straight up fight in an open area and offer them both a sword or a dagger, anyone choosing the dagger is a fool. It's not really because a sword is more lethal than the dagger. Giving it more damage though makes you choose the sword which is what they want in terms of incentives. It makes you make the same decision people who fight with those things would make.

There's a good point here - especially because there's games that don't do this. I played a session of Fate Accelerated tonight, and that game does not have a concept of normal weapons having different damage they do. The weapon enables action in this game, but does not alter the result after that.

So, if I have a rifle, I can attack at long distances. If I have a pistol, I can attack at medium ranges. If I have a sword, I can melee. The weapon allows me to try an action in various situations, but does not alter the die roll beyond that. In such a situation, if my character is good with a sword, then he is most enabled by swords. If another character is good with daggers, then they are most enabled by daggers. And, in a fight between them, there's not going to be a clear advantage to one over the other, mechanically.

 

[DammitVictor]

You know, normally, this is the unrealistic assumption that everyone makes... that causes their "realistic" house rules to fall apart.

Realistically, there are a handful of important vital organs and/or blood vessels that piercing/slashing/crushing is almost immediately fatal with... practically the entirety of other physical trauma only serving the purpose of degrading the victim's endurance and morale and making them more vulnerable for one of the former kill shots.

The battle axe isn't more likely to score a kill shot than the dagger, and it really isn't better at wearing down the victim's fighting spirit. It's longer than the dagger, giving it more reach, and it's heavier so it's more effective against shields and armor. It's got a hook on the business end that makes it easier to drag an victim's shield or even their weapon out of a defensive position. Compared to a sword, even a "short sword", it's not very useful for deflecting the victim's own pitiful attacks.

D&D doesn't model any of those things.

So a battle axe is a one-handed weapon, and it's not convenient to carry or hide, you can't throw it and you can't use it to sneak attack. So it does more damage than weapons that can do those things. In 3.X, the difference between an axe and a sword was that axes were less likely to deliver bigger critical htis, while swords were more likely to deliver smaller critical hits.

Is any of that realistic? No. Does it satisfy the need for deeper tactical decisions in weapon choice? Yes.

 

[GMMichael]

. . . It's not really because a sword is more lethal than the dagger. Giving it more damage though makes you choose the sword which is what they want in terms of incentives. It makes you make the same decision people who fight with those things would make.

. . . Is any of that realistic? No. Does it satisfy the need for deeper tactical decisions in weapon choice? Yes.

Nice points. "No, a great axe doesn't do 2.5x more damage than a dagger, but it's more interesting/different than a dagger." Kind of weird to want to incentivize sword usage (or great axe) over a dagger, but the most popular RPGs can't be wrong. Can they?

It looks like D&D 5e puts a dagger at d4 (avg. 2.5) damage and a great axe at d12 (avg. 6.5), or 1:2.6. Does WotC want you to use a great axe 2.6 more times than it wants you to use a dagger, or is it just using dice to suggest that bigger is better?

@Emerikol - I think your argument breaks down, for D&D at least, because someone fighting against a sword might not want a dagger, but the damage dice suggest that a maul or great axe would be a better choice. I'll take the sword over the maul!

 

[DammitVictor]

@Emerikol - I think your argument breaks down, for D&D at least, because someone fighting against a sword might not want a dagger, but the damage dice suggest that a maul or great axe would be a better choice. I'll take the sword over the maul!

I am pretty good with either a stick or a knife. (I'm not much with a sword.) If my enemy is unarmed, I want to use the knife. If my enemy has a weapon of their own, I want to use the stick.

If I have a shield, I'd prefer to use an axe-- I'm actually pretty good with an axe-- but if I don't have a shield, I'd prefer a sword.

 

[dragoner]

IMO, the energy is more in an axe (kinetic energy = half mass times velocity squared) so it's damage potential should be higher. If that is 2.5 higher, unknown.