D&D 5E (2014) No love for the hand axe?

[Sacrosanct]

Some interesting ideas in this thread. Since exploration and the environment are major factors in my campaign (we have combat only about once every 2 or 4 game sessions), I may look at campfire building being a survival check at disadvantage without the proper tools, if the environment is not ideal. I'm thinking if the wood is all wet, splitting thicker than normal limbs to get at the dry wood inside.

The big one is shelter. If you don't have an axe or saw, good luck chopping down anything more than a couple inches in diameter, and even then it's going to take AGES. I don't think most people realize just how difficult tasks are until they are actually attempted because we tend to make assumptions. Sort of goes back to that old "climbing should be a str check" debate. As someone who has done rock climbing, while strength is important, it is irrelevant compared to technique. The strongest person will tire out almost immediately if you use your arms to pull yourself up, like most new people do. You have to use proper technique of balance, flexibility, and using your legs.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I don't know about the rest of you, but now I want to add a handaxe or two to the arsenal of all of my D&D traveling warriors.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also, in the Caribbean they didn't use knives per se. They used panga blades, which....wait for it...have a long and heavy weighted tip that is more axe-like than it is knife like.

The panga was actually primarily used in East Africa, not the Caribbean. A panga blade is effectively a machete, not an axe.


But I was discussing an islander at sea, not inland. Surviving at sea rarely involves chopping thick heavy rope, wood, or other materials; or digging holes (something larger blades are often better at than a knife). A more modest blade is more useful in a survival situation at sea to cut fish, help repair engines or other equipment, and in extreme emergencies, create other tools like spears. Even something simple like screwing in a screw (Phillips or regular slot) is done easier with a knife onboard a ship than an axe. For Caribbean fishermen caught out on the ocean, a panga (or an axe) would have less utility than a knife.

Again, the best tool is based on the environment and situation one finds himself in. Something you refuse to acknowledge. How much does one need to lug an axe around in Death Valley? 2 pounds eventually feels like 10 and the utility is minimal.


Btw, go try to use an axe for first aid instead of a more precise knife in a survival or emergency situation. You'll often end up doing more harm than good. Try to dig a splinter out from under your fingernail with an axe. Or try getting a burrowing bug out from under your skin (happened to my ex-boss and it wasn't a tick that heat could help with). There is a reason doctors rarely use axes.

Try fixing your backpack with an axe.

Try using your axe as a stake to hold a rope on your tent (you might not be in an area where wood is plentiful and you can carve one). And if you do have to carve wooden stakes, it's easier to dig smaller holes with a knife if the ground is too hard or rocky to pound the stacks into.

I also personally think that it is easier to baton split wood with a knife (or a machete) instead of an axe. Sure, when you have perfectly chain saw or hand saw 90 degree angled wood, an axe can often split a short narrow log fairly easy. I just personally think that a knife works better in less ideal situations and tends to be longer than an axe blade, so it can split thicker logs (or be used to trim split thicker logs into thinner logs). And swinging an axe is not exactly the safest thing a person can do.

There are many precise tasks that knives are better at. I totally concede that axes are better at chopping and smashing, and that they can in some cases, be used for cutting. I do think that field dressing an animal is a lot easier with a knife.

And the reason I brought up that documentary is because in it, they use their axes for everything you just got done saying you can't really use an axe easily with. I assume they know what a knife is, so why do you think they use an axe for everything you said an axe is bad for? These are people who do this every day as part of their life. I assume the are experts.

Experts in a coniferous forest. I already conceded that point, but you are still talking about it.

And, just because people who are experts can do something, doesn't mean that most normal people can easily do the same thing. It takes years of practice for those people to use their axes for some of the things they use them for, just like it takes years of practice to be good at gymnastics, golf, or a wide variety of other activities. Just because those people can use their axes well for many things doesn't mean that most people can. Most people at better at using a knife than an axe. That's just a fact because most people use knives more than they use axes.

You are deriving a conclusion from an invalid premise. Just because an axe might be better for you in your outdoor environment does not mean that it is better for most people in many other environments.

But it seems clearly you aren't willing to take my word for it despite my experience. I posed the same question to the Bushcrafter/Survival G+ group (over 12,000 members), and so far roughly 2/3 agree the axe is the better choice.

Argumentum ad populum.


As to my experience, I only tend to go out in the wilderness once every few years these days. I used to do it for a week or two every year (mostly backpacking and hunting), but that was a couple decades back.

But here is a web page that shows you how to break up wood for a fire without an axe or saw. Firewood does not have to be pretty.

using a rock

Axes are for amateurs.

 

[PnPgamer]

For its credit though, hand axe is handy

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For its credit though, hand axe is handy

Oh that was bad. Wonderful, but bad.

 

[TwoSix]

So having a lot of utility and 1d6 dmg vs very little utility and 1d8 dmg, in real life the first is always chosen over the second, while in our games, people almost always choose the second over the first.

Just making an observation is all.

I assume that's because that real-life utility doesn't transfer into game experience utility. The handaxe doesn't give you a bonus to Survival checks, after all. And I don't know anyone who narrates non-combat issues to the degree of specificity where the utility of an axe versus a dagger would come into play.

 

[KarinsDad]

I assume that's because that real-life utility doesn't transfer into game experience utility. The handaxe doesn't give you a bonus to Survival checks, after all. And I don't know anyone who narrates non-combat issues to the degree of specificity where the utility of an axe versus a dagger would come into play.

In fact, players often finagle bonuses to skill rolls from DMs by coming up with imaginative ways to use the supplies they have. Things that wouldn't really give them much of an edge in the real world. DMs reward players for imaginative solutions, even if they seem a bit far fetched. The real world only rewards imaginative solutions if they have a fairly solid chance of actually improving the situation.

 

[KarinsDad]

The handaxe doesn't give you a bonus to Survival checks, after all.

Most skill rolls are under the assumption that the PC has the right tool for the job. Lock picks for opening a lock as one example. There are DMs who might give a penalty to a survival check if the PCs do not have the proper equipment, however, PCs seem to almost always have a ton of a variety of equipment, so this might be rare.

 

[TwoSix]

In fact, players often finagle bonuses to skill rolls from DMs by coming up with imaginative ways to use the supplies they have. Things that wouldn't really give them much of an edge in the real world. DMs reward players for imaginative solutions, even if they seem a bit far fetched. The real world only rewards imaginative solutions if they have a fairly solid chance of actually improving the situation.

I've noticed that DMs tend to reward players who engage with the setting, whether that be with tools, magic, or conversation. The actual validity of the plan tends to be secondary to the desire to reward players for creativity, outside of the needs of some hard-core simulationists.

Most skill rolls are under the assumption that the PC has the right tool for the job. Lock picks for opening a lock as one example. There are DMs who might give a penalty to a survival check if the PCs do not have the proper equipment, however, PCs seem to almost always have a ton of a variety of equipment, so this might be rare.

While I agree, I think most people lack the experience (or, honestly, the concern) as to whether or not a handaxe, a dagger, or a vorpal sword is the best tool to set up camp for the night. It certainly doesn't come up enough to make it a priority over +1 average damage.

I would say that a class or background feature giving +1 damage or a die bump to weapons that double as useful tools could be entirely appropriate.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've noticed that DMs tend to reward players who engage with the setting, whether that be with tools, magic, or conversation. The actual validity of the plan tends to be secondary to the desire to reward players for creativity, outside of the needs of some hard-core simulationists.

Agreed.

While I agree, I think most people lack the experience (or, honestly, the concern) as to whether or not a handaxe, a dagger, or a vorpal sword is the best tool to set up camp for the night. It certainly doesn't come up enough to make it a priority over +1 average damage.

D&D players might be a bit above the curve on actual survival knowledge, but most people are dumb as rocks about it. There are millions of people on the planet who know how to use an iPhone better than they do how to start a fire without matches or lighters. I do not consider myself a survival expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I once took an arctic survival test where I scored 3x the next best score out of 20 other people (and 90% of the score when we brainstormed it as a team, the point of the test was to prove to people that working as a team is better than working as individuals). I did this under the "incorrect" assumption that I should move out of the area and save myself. According to the experts, only Inuits and other similarly raised individuals should attempt to move out of the area. Everyone else should stay put and wait for rescue. The point is, many if not most people would die or be seriously injured by the time help arrives in survival situations since they really do not know what to do, even if they do have effective tools. I include myself in that list because although I have experience and knowledge in some environments, I do not have any experience or knowledge in many other environments. Being an expert woodsman in a forest does not mean that you are also an expert out on the ocean, in a desert, or in a jungle. The challenges and dangers are different, the tools required are different, and 10 year old children who grow up in a given environment have a better chance at survival than most adults who did not.

I would say that a class or background feature giving +1 damage or a die bump to weapons that double as useful tools could be entirely appropriate.

Maybe. My personal take is that skills (including combat skills) already assume that a given PC is already using the proper tool for the job. I don't see why a class should get a bonus for doing that. Now, a given class might get a bonus to the skill itself (like Bards or Rogues), but not for using subpar tools/weapons as substitutes. They might get less or no penalty for doing so.