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?

 

[TheAlkaizer]

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.

I agree with this.

But it depends on context. In an artificial context where you'd have a poor test subject that would stand still and give you one calculated strike with either a dagger or a battle axe, I don't think that the battle axe (even though it has more kinetic energy and is much more destructive) would necessary be more lethal. Without being hindered, it's unlikely that a stab from a dagger wouldn't be fatal.

But in the context of two people fighting, dodging and exchanging blows; if I had to bet money as to which weapon landing a hit would be deadlier, I would 100% put it on the battle axe. There is, in my mind, much more chances that a blow from the axe will be fatal.

 

[dragoner]

I agree with this.

But it depends on context. In an artificial context where you'd have a poor test subject that would stand still and give you one calculated strike with either a dagger or a battle axe, I don't think that the battle axe (even though it has more kinetic energy and is much more destructive) would necessary be more lethal. Without being hindered, it's unlikely that a stab from a dagger wouldn't be fatal.

But in the context of two people fighting, dodging and exchanging blows; if I had to bet money as to which weapon landing a hit would be deadlier, I would 100% put it on the battle axe. There is, in my mind, much more chances that a blow from the axe will be fatal.

I agree, context is key, if the situation is like a hallway or other constrained space where someone can't fully swing an axe, the dagger would do better.

 

[DammitVictor]

Yeah. The greataxe and the dagger are both absolutely the better weapon in different circumstances that, mostly, D&D just doesn't model or... adventurers would be able to pick their battles for in a way that soldiers wouldn't.

Worth noting that in D&D the base damage die of the greataxe is 2.5 greater than the dagger, but that only means that the greataxe does 2.5 times as much damage as the dagger if both combatants are using nonmagical weapons with STR 10-11 and no class/feat support. Sneak Attack +3d6 versus the Great Weapon Master feat makes a hell of a difference in which weapon's better... and really it should, probably even more than it actually does.

 

[Emerikol]

@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!

Well for one they aren't perfect. In reality, a variety of factors would affect weapon choice. Things like price or availability. The amount of training required to use the weapon. All these things are ignored by D&D. Everyone fights with the same skill with whatever weapon they choose. That doesn't negate the fact that them varying the stats on weapons is an attempt to foster usage of particular weapons. Damage is of course just one stat.

 

[Voadam]

OD&D and Basic D&D had all weapons do 1d6 with optional rules for variable weapon damage. It can be done multiple ways.

In most D&D the weapons probably have other modifiers to damage as well so a 16 strength person with a +3 bonus to damage changes the math for how different the two are in inflicting damage.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

Depending on the system, there can be other tradeoffs as well.

A dagger is much easier to smuggle under clothing than a sword. A rapier might have a parry bonus from being a fencing weapon. Different types of damage may have wounding modifiers.

 

[Emerikol]

Depending on the system, there can be other tradeoffs as well.

A dagger is much easier to smuggle under clothing than a sword. A rapier might have a parry bonus from being a fencing weapon. Different types of damage may have wounding modifiers.

I think that is what game designers these days do. They create a variety of options that incentivize whatever they want incentivized. Often it is a quasi-realistic (now that is a term) idea of the sort of weapons they think adventurers would use.

 

[aramis erak]

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?

It's worth noting that there is a real world comparison metric, it's most well known for firearms. Actually, two - one shot stops and one shot kills.
The UK police had a database, referenced in a 1990's FBI dataset release (on dead tree - I checked it out via ILL for a paper in college), of various knives for one slash and one stab kills by type of melee weapon used in violent crimes, and compared it to one shot kills. I don't know if it's available to the public, or currently maintained, but it's the best real world starting point.

In all irony, after deep-diving into the metrics of weapon lethality, I think the best answer is, "a die, the size of which is based upon skill with the weapon, not the weapon itself" unless you're going to use armor as a damage reduction.

Given my current games in progress — Talisman Adventures and Pendragon — talisman damage is strongly affected by attributes, and Pendragon is almost entirely by attributes. (
Pendragon: PC Damage = ((Str + Size)/10)d6, rounding the number of dice normally; size is 2d6+6, Str 3d6. HP are Size+Con, 0=dead. Note that the game only uses d6's, d3's, and d20's, with D3's being used for healing and for some falls and degradation, not weapon damage.
Talisman, most are 1d6+Str, and Str starts are 2,3 or 4 for PCs, but can hit 10, and NPCs can range from 0 to 10+; A few small weapons do 1d3+Str, and a few large do 2d6+Str. Monsters can get even bigger damages. PC Life Points at first level run 10 to 21, and at 10th from 19 to 43. The game doesn't list levels above 10th, but progression is obvious, so it could o further. Note that the game only uses d6's and d3's.

 

[GMMichael]

OD&D and Basic D&D had all weapons do 1d6 with optional rules for variable weapon damage. It can be done multiple ways.

In all irony, after deep-diving into the metrics of weapon lethality, I think the best answer is, "a die, the size of which is based upon skill with the weapon, not the weapon itself" unless you're going to use armor as a damage reduction.

I actually like a d8 to be the default weapon damage, but then I assume that five die-types are available for differentiation (4, 6, 8, 10, 12).

It's confusing, in D&D terms, that a hit and damage are different things. Because if you swing and miss (or your opponent parries your attack) you've clearly done no damage, or the worst possible hit. If you chop your opponent in half, you've done 100% damage, or the best possible hit. There are miles of gray area in-between. So another answer to the post question is, "that depends on which weapon hits," or from aramis, "that depends on which user has more skill."

My parting answer (for now) is:

The great axe does 2.5x the dagger's damage if skill, armor, and mobility aren't really factors in the measurement. So, you're basically just dropping a blade on a watermelon.

So what if you have opponents of equal skill fighting each other...?

 

[Emerikol]

The great axe does 2.5x the dagger's damage if skill, armor, and mobility aren't really factors in the measurement. So, you're basically just dropping a blade on a watermelon.

So what if you have opponents of equal skill fighting each other...?

I don't totally buy this but your point does call for a wider range of amplified critical damage based upon skill. If I have a sword and you have a dagger, and we are equal in skill then the sword is favored. And as you begin to separate in skill it isn't instantaneous that the dagger passes the sword. I would think a 10% better warrior (whatever that is) would not win with a dagger but perhaps a 25% or 50% better warrior would.