PDA

View Full Version : Hammer-Axe



Ambrogino
2006-02-08, 01:29 PM
Spurred of the Warhammer's in the Does Miko wear Armour? Thread...

In a few systems, including D&D, there are creatures that take dirrefent, or no damage from different types of weapons (blunt, slashing, piercing etc.). In a few LARP's I've been to I've seen people wielding a (fantasy) weapon that consists of a short haft with a single bladed axe head and a single sided hammer head back to back, thus to allow changing from blunt to slashing damage by spinning the weapon 180 degrees (horizontaly - both heads are on the same end of the haft).

Ignoring any real world issues of weight and balance (surely it's more practical than a hook-hammer or urgosh) what's the balanced way to stat such a weapon? I'd say changing from hammer to axe should only be a free action, and that each head should treat the damage/criticals exactly as a normal version of that weapon, but does that make the weapon out of balance with what else has been presented? If it becomes an Exotic weapon isn't it then underpowered by comparison to other weapons (given taht it still only has the statistics of one martial weapon at any one time)?

Mike_G
2006-02-08, 01:58 PM
It seems feasible. Many hammers had a spike on the back of the head, so why not an axe blade? There were a number of weapons with several "heads" like the axe/spear point/ backspike arrangment of the halberd.

As far as stats, I'd say it can't be weilded like the double wepons, and should take something, say a move equivalent action to change your grip to switch heads.

For damage and crit threats, etc, I'd just use the axe and warhammer stats as is.

It shouldn't need to be an exotic weapon, because you just use it like an axe, or use it like a hammer, which isn't all that different anyway -- whack your opponet smartly with the heavy end. The extra weight might be an issue, but I think it could be engineered to minimize that. The weight of the combined head would add oomph to blows with either side, so each face could be a bit lighter than a plain axe or hammer.

It should be more expensive and harder to make, so a higher Craft [Weaponsmith] DC, more cost, and maybe more to enchant, maybe you need to do each face separately.

That's my two cents. Maybe people who've used axes or hammers more would have more insight.

coredump
2006-02-08, 02:11 PM
Pretty much, any axe turned around will work as a hammer.
It wouldn't take much to put a shot 4-prong head on it to make it even more effective.

I would make it a free action to switch, but apply a -2 circumstance penalty for the first attack (or maybe round)

Nolfar
2006-02-08, 02:14 PM
In ways, it works better than alot of other double-headed weapons I've heard of. Add a spike head at the top (like a pike) and you've got something startingly close to a halberd, btw. That is, a pole axe with a pike and spike as two other heads you can use. Obviously the pike head is only useful at 10' (like a longspear) but the other two heads (and shaft) can be used up close if you weild it right, though not very effectively (besides the staff part anyway).

That said, the halberd is a martial weapon to begin with (thought HORABLY statted in D&D).

Tzor
2006-02-08, 02:35 PM
I have one of those things in my garrage, it's got a axe head on one side and a hammer head on the other side. Of course it's supposed to be for vile trees and nails not opponents, but you could easily make it sizeable for any occasion.

I would suggest that it would be no more or no less special than either a hammer or an axe of its normal size since, unlike a real two weapon weapon you can't make more attacks than normal with it. It should be a free action to change which side of the weapon to hit with in any attack.

SilverElf4
2006-02-08, 02:38 PM
And I would reserve the right to make it only available as a masterwork weapon if it seems to be in danger of being abused (and maybe it should be anyway, considering the balance issues).

Spuddly
2006-02-08, 02:40 PM
Heck, put a spike at the top and have it do slashing, piercing and bludgeoning!

I'd think a weapon with an axe blade on one side and a hammer on the other would not function as well as either an axe nor a hammer, since the hammer would be underweighted and the axe over. But that would actually just be nonsensical explanation for the sake of 'balance'. In reality, I think it'd work just fine:
http://www.111.co.za/Gallery2005/images/Axe%2060x46.jpg

Here's a wood chopping axe. Beef the head up, put a spike on the back side of it, now you have a warhammer battleaxe. Nifty.

Nolfar
2006-02-08, 02:42 PM
Axe..over..weighted....? I thought one of the "finer" points of the axe was that the more weight you put behind it the deeper you'd cut with it, hence gigantic battleaxes and whatnot. Also, if the axe head was large enough, the hammer would be weighted pretty well.

Spuddly
2006-02-08, 03:05 PM
I'd think a weapon with an axe blade on one side and a hammer on the other would not function as well as either an axe nor a hammer, since the hammer would be underweighted and the axe over. But that would actually just be nonsensical explanation for the sake of 'balance'. In reality, I think it'd work just fine

Fhaolan
2006-02-08, 03:14 PM
http://www.slam.org/exhibits/armsandarmor/images/441919.html

This is a type of pollaxe, common for 16th century knightly duels. There are one-handed versions, usually lumped in with warhammers and fighting axes.

So, they're not 'fantasy' weapons. They existed then, they still exist in museums around the world, and they were effective.

How to balance them? Honestly, is it that big of a deal that a weapon can do both bludgeoning and slashing damage but only one at a time?

Thomas
2006-02-08, 03:19 PM
Compare the halberd and the glaive in the SRD. Obviously it's not going to be a game balance issue. You might want to increase the price 20-25% over a battleaxe or a warhammer.

tgva8889
2006-02-08, 03:24 PM
This seems like a cool weapon. The type of thing that dwarf barbarian charging at you from the other end of the hall would swing over his head at you. One head, a hammer, the other, an Axe. Yeah, you could just put something pointy on the top, and it would deal every type of damage. What do you know about that?

It would probably be a 2-handed weapon or it would have to cost lots of money/deal less damage than either the hammer or the axe to be balanced, game-wise. Mostly because Bludeoning and Slashing always seemed like completely separate damage types, and having a weapon that could do both with a 1d8 damage would be stupid powerful against certain early damage reductions.

OzymandiasVolt
2006-02-08, 03:57 PM
It's cute how people think a weapon capable of dealing two types of damage is unbalanced, while ignoring the NUMEROUS FRIGGIN' EXAMPLES in the PHB.

Just take the greataxe, add a note saying that it does slashing OR bludgeoning, and increase the price by a few gold. Maybe increase the weight by one pound.

There, problem solved. :P

tgva8889
2006-02-08, 04:00 PM
It's cute how people think a weapon capable of dealing two types of damage is unbalanced, while ignoring the NUMEROUS FRIGGIN' EXAMPLES in the PHB.

Just take the greataxe, add a note saying that it does slashing OR bludgeoning, and increase the price by a few gold. Maybe increase the weight by one pound.

There, problem solved. :P

I like how you mock me.

The difference is, there are no weapons in the PHB that deal both Bludeoning and Slashing, are there? Sure, there are some that deal Bludeoning and Piercing and Slashing and Piercing, but Bludeoning and Slashing have always been different damage types (so has Piercing, but it is added to a bunch of weapons).

I don't really mind much, but from the gamer's standpoint, it might not be balancing to have such a weapon deal so much damage. It's like a Halberd, and thus should be based off one.

OzymandiasVolt
2006-02-08, 04:06 PM
I wasn't mocking you specifically, I was complaining about the mindset in general.

And I said slashing OR bludgeoning, not slashing AND bludgeoning. It's a little thing that may make a difference.

(Also, for some reason I have an image in my head of a heavy mace with vertical blades on it, which would therefore deal slashing AND bludgeoning damage.)

Nolfar
2006-02-08, 04:11 PM
Well, if you follow the Sage, you have all reach weapons being X or Bludgeoning, but the bludgeoning is a 5' instead of 10' and has a -4 non-proficency penalty.

Leperflesh
2006-02-08, 04:32 PM
I like this discussion, because one of the very first things I house-ruled when I started DMing 3rd edition (this is 3.0 mind you) was to add 'bludgeoning' as damage type to several of the larger melee weapons.

I had always been told that you can batter an opponent with a large weapon like a greatsword, even if his armor is protecting him from slashing-type weapons. This is especially evident against maille type armors - they protect from cuts, but a solid blow from any heavy weapon can still break ribs or elbows or knees.

Frankly I don't think the balance issue is important. Yeah, sure, now the PCs are less likely to wind up facing skeletons or whatever and realize they lack effective damage-type weapons. But my players have always been smart enough to ensure the party has ample supply of all three damage types anyway.

Of course, I never really cared much for the three damage types, either. To me, there should be a fourth - chopping - becuase you generally can slash OR chop with a number of edged weapons, and the results (and type of armor that resists the damage) vary. Plus, of course, there is a difference between the piercing damage of a stiletto and the piercing damage of a broadhead arrow. One is designed specifically to penetrate maille and puncture light plate, while the other is designed to create a very bloody wound in an animal, or be difficult and damaging to extract from a human.

Ultimately I tend to view these things as being guidelines. I freely apply minor advantage or penalty to various weapons against specific foes, based on flavor considerations. I think this helps prevent weapon-optimization arguments at the gaming table, and encourages the players to pick weapons that fit their character concept, rather than some calculus about the types of enemies to be encountered.

-Lep

Spuddly
2006-02-08, 04:44 PM
I think the main issue with giving multiple damage types to one weapon is giving specialized fighter characters more versatility than their feats should allow.

Gordon
2006-02-08, 05:03 PM
I think the main issue with giving multiple damage types to one weapon is giving specialized fighter characters more versatility than their feats should allow.

As, for example, the Dagger?

TimeWizard
2006-02-08, 05:25 PM
Your typical one-handed axe (Personal favorite) is a solid weapon that has passed the test of time for over 3,000 years. If you want to rule in a hammer back for bludgeoning go ahead.

Axe Reinforcement
cost: 100 gp, requires a masterwork or magic weapon.
Craft: Weaponsmithing DC 20
You reinforce the head shaft of the axe, covering it with a solid steel block, only slightly larger than the shaft itself. A warrior may use this reinforced head to attack foes, dealing buldgeoning damage instead of slashin damage. All other properties remain the same

Free Action: Switch from slashing to bludgeoning/ vice versa. This must be done on your turn and cannot be done during an attack (i.e. you can't switch between attacks, but you can before or after).

Edit: Flavor Text

Spuddly
2006-02-08, 05:29 PM
As, for example, the Dagger?

What's the damage on that, again?

Bludgeoning is best for undead, and the downside to piercing and slashing weapons is their ineffectuality on things that aren't alive.