Joe Commoner, and his BIG AXE!!!

[Stalker0]

So one thing we know is that proficiencies now give you bonuses to hit, instead of providing a penalty. And those bonuses change. For example, a dagger gives +3, while a big axe only gives a +1.

An interesting side effect of this is that it makes the axe a very nice weapon for just about anyone. An effective "-1" isn't that much of a penalty, and after all it provides good damage. So will we see every tom, dick, and harry wielding a big honking axe, since being non proficient isn't that bad?

Of course, I'm assuming that non proficiency doesn't have other drawbacks, which is certainly possible.

 

[Snarls-at-Fleas]

They've mentioned something about a rogue running around with a greataxe and them fixing it. So I guess it's not the case anymore.

 

[hong]

They've mentioned something about a rogue running around with a greataxe and them fixing it. So I guess it's not the case anymore.

Right, the issue won't be that +1/2/3 proficiency, but whether the weapon works with my suite of funky powers. I guess people whose funky powers don't depend on the weapon (clerics, wizards et al) _and_ are short on weapon profs might prefer an axe over a rapier, but the difference in power is small enough that it'll be mostly a flavour decision.

 

[neceros]

Well, let's think about it.

If you had the choice of a big axe or a short sword, and you did not know how to use either very well, but you knew that the axe would cleave threw anything if you hit it right, what would you choose?

 

[Kzach]

It actually wouldn't be that bad if the axe was a common weapon given that it was a common commoners weapon in medieval times.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Axe, also I think if we assume some basic-axes will be like the pick which had "versatility" (which I think we figured out meant usage out-of-combat) then it makes sense a commoner would have a axe.

Seeing how they can use it to carve things, chop down trees, chop firewood, defend themselves, etc.

 

[hong]

Axe, also I think if we assume some basic-axes will be like the pick which had "versatility" (which I think we figured out meant usage out-of-combat) then it makes sense a commoner would have a axe.

Seeing how they can use it to carve things, chop down trees, chop firewood, defend themselves, etc.

None of which compares to katanae, which can cut through TANKS.

TANKS, mang!

 

[Lord Sessadore]

None of which compares to katanae, which can cut through TANKS.

TANKS, mang!

But only if you're proficient

Seriously though, swords are the only weapons whose only use is as weaponry. Most other weapons are at least derived from tools (more directly than how swords are just really big knives). I could see an axe being a common weapon for a commoner. They'd know how it cuts wood, and most rural commoners would have one.

A greataxe though ... that would likely cost far more than a commoner could afford for a weapon. Now that scythe sitting in the barn, on the other hand....

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Pfft... Tanks, call me when it can cut through to the Earth's core like a good old Claymore

Also, just random thought here that is off-topic, what if besides ordinary-versatile there was another type of versatile for very combat-oriented weapons that was the non-kill versatile, ie: pommel of a sword.

Yeah there are a lot of weapons that should have versatile... Up to a point, a greataxe for example, I can't imagine being versatile simply because the way the axe-head is made a ton of things a ordinary axe could do would be limited by the size/shape and weight of the greataxe.

 

[pawsplay]

Well, let's think about it.

If you had the choice of a big axe or a short sword, and you did not know how to use either very well, but you knew that the axe would cleave threw anything if you hit it right, what would you choose?

The shortsword is still much easier to handle.