Greataxe, greatsword, and a little math

[jaelis]

Everyone complains about the paladin's spike damage but if you remove the doubled smite damage on a crit, you are fundamentally changing the math for that class.

Yes but I would argue it moves the math to be more in line with other classes. Kind of a separate topic though.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I see the point of this, and it seems like reasonable game design. It doesn't feel like dnd to me though. I think part of the game for me is the specific level of abstraction it applies to combat, which has been there from the beginning I think. Contemplating your suggestion, it strikes me that the different properties of different weapons is part of what sets that level of abstraction.

To try to explain it a bit further, consider a fighter with a sword vs a fighter with a dagger. In the real world I'm pretty sure the sword wielding will have a big advantage. Using damage to reflect that advantage isn't particularly realistic, but it is something. I think in your system, you would say that expertise with the dagger means knowing how to fight effectively against someone with a sword. In some sense, you have the skill to make up for the weapon difference. I don't have any logical beef with that, but it means that expertise with a sword is somehow different than expertise with a dagger which seems a little weird.

Maybe the best way to say it is, I would be willing play a game that used this system. But I think I would be disappointed if the next version of dnd used it.

Entirely fair. Here's my reply to sword v. dagger

Sword has more reach than the dagger. The key to getting over on a sword wielder when you're the dagger wielder is to get inside the swing and be where the sword isn't. Example. If I'm going up against a guy with a sword and they're swinging down from their right hand side to their left. My goal is to actually walk into/under the swing arc before the blade gets there and end up behind the swordsman.

At that point his momentum exposes his back and I have a good place to put the dagger, right between the shoulder blades. If I want to get fancy, I grab the top of his head and slit his neck. (As I'm typing this I realize it's Easter - my apologies. Kind of grim)

It's counter-intuitive but those are the things that weapon training teaches. No weapon is less deadly than any other, but every person has a varying degree of training with the weapon, reducing or increasing its deadliness. Of course, reach and range are important, but if you're in close quarters most times, training can offset the advantage if both people are not equally trained.

Now before this gets out of hand, at some point this logic breaks down. I'm not going to try to compare something across tech levels like sniper rifle v. dagger because assuming both targets know of the other, it's pretty clearly over for the melee weapon. However, it's pretty clear that a great axe and a dagger can both kill someone, but one is better suited for assassination (dagger) and one is better for cleaving down a shield (axe). There should be some way to reflect that.

That said, the properties were part of 1e for better or worse. Only thing I'm suggesting that's new is the single base damage die.

Thanks,
KB

 

[jaelis]

So you would argue that my intuition is wrong, and that all else being equal a fighter with a sword and a fighter with a dagger should be evenly matched? That's pretty interesting if true; no doubt much of my intuition is based on fantasy books and dnd itself. But if actual weapon fighters agree with you, that is good to know.

That said, I feel even more confident that an untrained guy like me with a sword vs me with a dagger, I would rather have the sword.

(BTW, like FrogReaver it is the single weapon die that is hard for me.)

--
Thinking about it, I guess your point is that if you hit someone with a dagger, it is basically as deadly as hitting someone with a sword. I would mostly agree with that. But it is pretty hard to interpret hp as plain physical damage anyway. Perhaps the dagger fighter would just get worn out and use up their plot armor faster, since the sword has more reach and mass.

 

[FrogReaver]

Entirely fair. Here's my reply to sword v. dagger

Sword has more reach than the dagger. The key to getting over on a sword wielder when you're the dagger wielder is to get inside the swing and be where the sword isn't. Example. If I'm going up against a guy with a sword and they're swinging down from their right hand side to their left. My goal is to actually walk into/under the swing arc before the blade gets there and end up behind the swordsman.

At that point his momentum exposes his back and I have a good place to put the dagger, right between the shoulder blades. If I want to get fancy, I grab the top of his head and slit his neck. (As I'm typing this I realize it's Easter - my apologies. Kind of grim)

It's counter-intuitive but those are the things that weapon training teaches. No weapon is less deadly than any other, but every person has a varying degree of training with the weapon, reducing or increasing its deadliness. Of course, reach and range are important, but if you're in close quarters most times, training can offset the advantage if both people are not equally trained.

Now before this gets out of hand, at some point this logic breaks down. I'm not going to try to compare something across tech levels like sniper rifle v. dagger because assuming both targets know of the other, it's pretty clearly over for the melee weapon. However, it's pretty clear that a great axe and a dagger can both kill someone, but one is better suited for assassination (dagger) and one is better for cleaving down a shield (axe). There should be some way to reflect that.

That said, the properties were part of 1e for better or worse. Only thing I'm suggesting that's new is the single base damage die.

Thanks,
KB

Yea... no.

Weapon choice matters. There's a reason no one waged war with daggers as their primary weapon.

 

[Kobold Boots]

So you would argue that my intuition is wrong, and that all else being equal a fighter with a sword and a fighter with a dagger should be evenly matched? That's pretty interesting if true; no doubt much of my intuition is based on fantasy books and dnd itself. But if actual weapon fighters agree with you, that is good to know.

That said, I feel even more confident that an untrained guy like me with a sword vs me with a dagger, I would rather have the sword.

(BTW, like FrogReaver it is the single weapon die that is hard for me.)

--
Thinking about it, I think your point is that if you hit someone with a dagger, it is basically as deadly as hitting someone with a sword. I would basically agree with that. But it is pretty hard to interpret hp as plain physical damage anyway. Perhaps the dagger fighter would just get worn out and use up their plot armor faster, since the sword has more reach and mass.

There are certainly more talented and effective weapon fighters than I but I count myself among them. I know just enough to have a strong opinion. I have no intention of questioning or discounting your intuition. This is an academic discussion for me.

Wielding a sword is slower than wielding a dagger. The larger the weapon the more momentum is required to use it and that generally requires some set up. This is why so much effort is put into weapons forms, to reduce the effort and streamline the use of the weapon. The more trained you are the better you are at not getting yourself hurt due to the inefficiencies of the weapon and more likely you'll get the result you want when you hit with it.

When you learn to fight with your hands, you learn to protect your sides and maintain range first.
When you learn to fight with a dagger, you learn how not to cut yourself first. Same with sword. So the matter of HP and AC when abstracted accounts for this.

When I was completely untrained I looked at reach as being the holy grail. Then as we advanced the range and reach between opponents invariably decreased. The advantage the sword has over the dagger is reach, but if you're inside a distance equal to the length of the blade, the advantage is gone, and if the swordsman goes for a hit and the dagger wielder's reaction is to move closer to the opponent, the swordsman is likely hosed.

I'd argue that effort comparison between the two is different but equivalent. The swordsman requires the same amount of effort to do half as many things as the dagger wielder, (more weapon mass does not help endurance) but the dagger wielder needs to pay far more attention to his position and may or may not have to exert more effort to remain safe depending on his or her experience/guts.

My point is that a dagger wielder with more experience is better than a sword wielder with less. If equally matched then I'd put my money on the sword, because they'd be less likely to make a mistake with their own positioning and the reach affords them more tolerance for error. Any weapon used to its strengths is just as deadly as any other. I'd not use a dagger to cut someone's head off, but I would use it if the desired effect was to take out a lung through the armpit or simply slice a throat from behind.

I'm going to go eat some peeps now..
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

Yea... no.

Weapon choice matters. There's a reason no one waged war with daggers as their primary weapon.

I hear you, but that's largely irrelevant to the damage discussion. Weapon choice matters but within the confines of the current d&d system, it matters for the wrong reason for the sake of simplicity and it takes away from how cool weapons really are.

Reality of the situation is that regardless of what the primary weapon was, whether it was longsword (which was really rare actually) axe (which was great at what it did) or whatever, dagger was the most commonly used weapon going back to antiquity in whatever form the thing took due to era and has probably killed more people as a result.

 

[FrogReaver]

Damage is not measuring ability to kill. It's measuring ability to deplete hp.

Let's not get into hp discussion

 

[5ekyu]

Everyone knows that the greataxe has slightly lower average damage than the greatsword. The axe does 6.5 on average, the sword does 7.0. This is not a big deal, but it bothers me more than it probably should.

Of course, when you add in the GWF style, the disparity grows quite a bit. Rerolling 1s and 2s, the axe does 7.33 hp, the sword does 8.33. That's equivalent to a full die step, and seems legitimately significant.

I've wondered about ways to fix this. Simplest would be to make the greataxe 2d6, but that is a little boring. I'm probably not the first person to realize that there is another option:
Give the greataxe the property that when you roll max damage, you get to roll again one time and add that to the total. So if you roll a 12, you end up doing 12+1d12.

If you work it out, that gives an average damage of 7.04 hp, almost exactly the same as the greatsword. With GWF it improves to 8.03, not exactly equivalent but much closer.

I like this, but I have a question: people tend to key in on the max damage, which increases dramatically in my scheme. Even though they are mathematically balanced, would this make the greataxe seem too good? When you read it, is your first reaction that you would always pick my greataxe over a greatsword?

One point: I would not normally apply this to monsters... their greataxes just wouldn't be quite as good.

Ok answers then comments...

I allow weapon reskinning as a matter of course so since the listed "weapons" are just stat-clusters we dont have an issue as the 1d12 vs 2d6 if seen as "an inferior or low quality" version (and notably cheaper at its 30g vs 50g price.) FYI we price mauls at 50 too if they are of the 2d6 quality, 30 if 1d12.

So the difference in 1d12 v 2d6 does not cause us any problem.

Would your new property make it so appealing to ditch the 2d6? Doubtful. The "lack" is seen as being tied to the unpredictability already and adding in a max roll swing adds more swing just rubs salt into that wound. For my plays crazy dice are just **not a plus**.

For me as a gm, adding new cool stuff that is hinged on dice not character is never going to be a direction i choose. Add new cool stuff that emphasizes or adds to character, choices, options - not the bouncey plastic bits.

If i were going to "fix" anything, i would take great axe stats, remove two-handed, add versatile with 1d10 base and 1d12 if used two handed. That give it a unique place... The HEAVY equivalent of longblade, battleaxe and warhammer with its own names.

So now we have..
Veratile d8/d10s in longblade, warhammer, battle axe cost 15g

Versatile Heavy at d10/d12 in the "Heavy Axe, sword, warhammer" cost 30g

Heavy two-hand at 2d6 in the maul, greatsword and "greataxe" cost 50.

So now we have got more options, more choices for the character to choose between and have removed the niggling math without empowering the die at all.

Of course, if i were going full overhaul, all one-weapons would be one die... And twf would be "weapon type" not bonus action eaters so twf would all be where you got two smaller dice damage from a single to hit roll.

 

[Quartz]

Everyone knows that the greataxe has slightly lower average damage than the greatsword. The axe does 6.5 on average, the sword does 7.0. This is not a big deal, but it bothers me more than it probably should.

It's probably been expounded upon ad nauseam the 9 pages I've skipped but the greataxe has a higher variability of damage. With a 2H sword you have - without re-rolls - a 1 in 36 chance of max damage but with a greataxe you have a 1 in 12 chance. Likewise minimum damage. With re-rolls, you have a 1/12 + (1/6 * 1/12) or 7/72 chance of max damage with a greataxe; with a 2H sword my maths is failing me but it's at least 16/72, which is a much greater chance. This completely changes the comparison.

My suggestion is to allow GWF to re-roll ONE die. You could also allow the Greataxe to benefit from the butt strike of the Polearm Master feat.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Damage is not measuring ability to kill. It's measuring ability to deplete hp.

Let's not get into hp discussion

Agreed about not going crazy on the HP discussion. That's another thread another time sort of thing.

Damage is not measuring ability to kill, but a measure of depleting HP is valid. However,
Depleting HP results in killing.

Therefore, within our escalating damage die discussion it would force a review of how HP are earned and how AC and HP are related. Nuff said to avoid crazy.

KB