Joe Commoner, and his BIG AXE!!!

[Nightchilde-2]

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.

Looking at Kathra Ironforge's sheet, I think "versatile" means the weapon can be used either one or two-handed. Her warhammer, for instance, is Versatile and gains a +1 to damage when used two-handed.

Of course..I could be wrong.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Axes and Spears have been the most common weapon throughout history. If most ancient peoples and medieval peoples had a choice on what to invest in between an axe and a sword, it was always the axe. Axes provided wood for heating and building. None of us remember days before electricity, but wood was a very common heating material. You needed an axe for it. You also needed an axe to add on to your hovel, etc. Thus every household in the country would have an axe or three laying around. 80% of people lived in the country back then too. City folk would have such stuff as daggers.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Swords were prestige weapons primarily or only used by nobility and by whatever passed for the state military because they were only useful for war; you couldn't hew wood with one and you couldn't harvest a field with one. Bandits occasionally used swords but much more frequently used axes or spears.

 

[Vomax]

Doesn't the axe also give +1 damage? According the "PHB Lite" there are weapons that give +3 to hit ('accurate'), +2 to hit ('regular') and +1 to hit/+1 to damage ('inaccurate').

 

[Andur]

Peasants would more likely have an ax than a sword. Pretty much any blacksmith can make an ax, takes a swordsmith to make a sword though.

That said, every 3 year old boy I have every known knows how to wield a sword. They don't do as well with "weapons" which have a center of gravity further out.

 

[GoLu]

Axes and Spears have been the most common weapon throughout history. If most ancient peoples and medieval peoples had a choice on what to invest in between an axe and a sword, it was always the axe. Axes provided wood for heating and building. None of us remember days before electricity, but wood was a very common heating material. You needed an axe for it. You also needed an axe to add on to your hovel, etc. Thus every household in the country would have an axe or three laying around. 80% of people lived in the country back then too. City folk would have such stuff as daggers.

I have a hunch that that was because an axe is a tool and a sword is a weapon, and people that don't tend to get into life or death battles would be expected to prefer a tool that provides them with warmth and shelter to a weapon that doesn't really do much for them. Plus, the axe is far cheaper.

But I don't think the tool axes (designed to chop firewood that doesn't fight back) are really comparable to the weapon axes (designed to chop people that do fight back). A sledgehammer is not a mace, for example. That said, I wouldn't want to get hit with either a sledgehammer or a cording axe. Or a chainsaw. Or a shotgun with birdshot. Or a woodsaw. Or a variety of other dangerous things that aren't really appropriate as weapons.

Anyway, my point is that peasants are certainly likely to have an axe. But it might not be an axe that is appropriate for combat.

 

[med stud]

Swords were prestige weapons primarily or only used by nobility and by whatever passed for the state military because they were only useful for war; you couldn't hew wood with one and you couldn't harvest a field with one. Bandits occasionally used swords but much more frequently used axes or spears.

Swords also occupied much of the same role as pistols have today. Many soldiers carried swords but it most of history they have been backup- weapons in war. In the civilian life swords were used much more. That way it makes sense that a peasant will have a battle axe or a spear if he has a weapon; it isn't likely that he fights a lot in his everyday life and he keeps the spear/battle axe for when he is called for to do battle.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Swords also occupied much of the same role as pistols have today. Many soldiers carried swords but it most of history they have been backup- weapons in war.

Heh. I was going to point this out myself but you beat me to it.

I just hope hammers get at least a +2 proficiency bonus. For some reason I really want to run a hammer wielding fighter in 4E. Maybe just because in every previous version of the rules hammers have been pretty lame and this might be a chance for them to finally shine.

 

[malraux]

A reasonable approach would be to do the same sort of thing for damage that you do with to hit bonuses. That is, if you aren't proficient with a sword, you don't get its extra attack bonus. Perhaps if you aren't proficient with an axe, the damage drops by a die size or two (or some other penalty to the damage). That keeps the balance for the intended area, characters with proficiency, while also not unbalancing it for those without.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Doesn't the axe also give +1 damage? According the "PHB Lite" there are weapons that give +3 to hit ('accurate'), +2 to hit ('regular') and +1 to hit/+1 to damage ('inaccurate').

I believe it's part of the dice, not an add on, as in the axe only gives +1 to attack when proficient, however it does d10, whereas a longsword probably gives +2 and does d8. Rapier, +3, d6.

Looking at Kathra Ironforge's sheet, I think "versatile" means the weapon can be used either one or two-handed. Her warhammer, for instance, is Versatile and gains a +1 to damage when used two-handed.

Of course..I could be wrong.

I believe that the +1 to damage while two handed itself is what Versatile means, one would assume that any one handed weapon could be used two handed. Then again, I could be wrong.