Pack Weight

A slight "addendum" to my post on encumbrance:

There are a lot of different ways to account for encumbrance, some more exacting than others. I think the only "cardinal sin" when it comes to encumbrance is ignoring it altogether...however, more detail provides for a richer experience. Of course, the trade-off with detail is more time spent accounting, whether you're talking the tallying of ounces, the tracking of cubic inches in one's rucksack, or some combination of both.

Sadly, I think my own beloved B/X (and the OD&D I'm currently running) is too abstract with regard to encumbrance. It's simply not good enough to say "all miscellaneous equipment weighs 8 pounds." A 300' coil of Manila rope (5/8 inch) weighs 35 pounds...that works out to about 6 pounds per 50' length. I emailed a guy in Latvia who handmakes medieval torches (burn time 40 minutes to an hour each); he hasn't gotten back to me yet, but they look to be a couple pounds each.

Different editions of D&D abstract encumbrance and movement rates at different levels. In OD&D a character could move her full speed (12" per turn) with a load that didn't exceed 75 pounds. AD&D revised this to 35 pounds "and no great bulk." B/X doesn't deal with "bulk" in the abstract, but keeps a similar weight allowance of 40 pounds, though it does NOT make use of bonuses for high strength (in AD&D, even a strength of 12 grants a 10# bonus...and a 16 strength would double the unencumbered carrying capacity to 70#).  Of all the rule sets, I think I consider 1st edition's rules to be the closest to my taste...certainly, I think the armor weights (at least with regard to the historical armors) to be calculated with more accuracy.

Funnily enough, after writing my post on encumbrance, I found a recent Wandering DMs podcast on encumbrance that I'd missed. I haven't been listening to them as often as I was for [reasons] but this wasn't a bad listen, considering my recent thoughts on the subject, and I was interested in what they had to say about 5E's system for encumbrance...specifically that calculated encumbrance was an "optional variant" and that actually making use of it resulted in starting characters being weighted down by their own equipment lists.

SO being the silly miscreant I am, I decided to check this out myself and did up a few spreadsheets.

The main issue has to do with the "starting packs" that 5E characters receive at the beginning of their careers. Each character class receives a menu list of items and (for all except barbarians) a choice between one of two "equipment packs" that contain a variety of rations, torches, etc. I went through and did an item by item calc of all the packs; here are the totals:

Burglar Pack: 47.5 pounds
Diplomat Pack: 37 pounds
Dungeoneer Pack: 61.5 pounds
Entertainer Pack: 38 pounds
Explorer Pack: 59 pounds
Priest Pack: 26 pounds
Scholar Pack: 12 pounds

I then did a calc of what would be the total weight of each class of character would be carrying based on what I'd guess to be the "usual" equipment selection. In all cases, I chose the pack that seemed most useful for "normal adventuring" (so no diplomat, priest, or scholar packs). Here's how the loads break down for each, not counting additional equipment based on "background:"

Barbarian: 78 pounds
Bard: 53 pounds
Cleric: 115.5 pounds
Druid: 79 pounds
Fighter: 134 pounds
Monk: 67 pounds
Paladin: 128 pounds
Ranger (leather armor): 77 pounds
Rogue: 66.5 pounds
Sorcerer: 73 pounds
Warlock: 86 pounds
Wizard: 70 pounds

Using the point buy system of assigning ability scores and going with the suggested placements for Strength, we'd find most of these characters count as "encumbered" under the 5E variant rules. The unarmored barbarian is okay with a strength of 16+, but this is only possible with a racial selection of dwarf, half-orc, dragonborn, or human. A bard would be okay with a strength of at least 11 thanks to the comparative lightness of the "entertainer's pack" and the relatively low weight of her instrument (a lute in 5E is only 2 pounds as opposed to the 350 coin bulk of the same instrument in AD&D which, presumably considers packing and such). The warlock, on the other hand, would be considered "heavily encumbered" unless given a strength score of at least 9 (I'd assume that any of the "arcane" spell-caster's would put their lowest stat...an 8...in strength, but a racial bonus could boost the warlock to where she is simply "encumbered").

Ready for adventure!

All of which is to say, yeah, 5E loads are pretty darn heavy for starting characters...unless I've missed some rule that allows them to each start with a horse or pack animal of some sort. 'Course, even 5E DMs that make use of the encumbrance rules won't find PCs too heavily penalized...there doesn't seem to be any reduction in movement over time, only a reduction in tactical (combat) speed. Exploration and overland movement rates are not explicitly reduced for a reduced speed (dwarves don't move any slower per day, for example), though such could be extrapolated based on a throwaway line for flying mounts found in the 5E DMG (I'm not going to bother looking up the page right now...spent too long doing that the other day).

But I'd guess most 5E games aren't making much use of the optional encumbrance rules anyway. I'd guess that most players, when they think of their character, are simply picturing them in "cinematic mode," reaching for an extra weapon tied to the belt, rather than wondering how that barbarian is carrying four javelins, two hand axes, and a 60 pound backpack, in addition to her greataxe.

[what is a "greataxe" supposed to be anyway? A Dane axe clocks in at about 4.5 pounds and a bit under 5' in length and is about the limit of what I consider the typical battle axe; I suppose this thing is some sort of exaggerated anime style monstrosity, since "battle axe" is a separate entry]

The weights given in 5E are actually pretty generous (with the exception of heavier armors...)...giving the same gear to AD&D characters results in much heavier loads. The barbarian's 78 pounds becomes 151.7 in AD&D (using the bardiche as a substitute for "greataxe"). Both the cleric and fighter kits top over 180 pounds, while the "light-weight" ranger in leather armor hits 160.  All the spell caster's are over 140 (163.2 for the warlock) and even the bard and rogue exceed 116 pounds of weight. Fully half of these equipment lists would result in immobility for an AD&D character without some sort of strength bonus; fighters and clerics would need a strength of 16+ just to stagger around under the weight of their loads. And that's using the weight for "iron" rations, as opposed to "standard."

The main issue are these packs, which are excessive in the amount of adventuring gear they give each character to carry. Food, as one would expect, takes up the bulk of the space (I did not use any pack that failed to include rations), but the sheer amount of equipment each character is expected to lug is too much. Must every individual carry 25 pounds of torches, 8 pounds of rope, 10 pounds of iron spikes? Sure some redundancy is good for an adventuring party ("Oh, no! We lost Sally in the chasm and she had all the lantern oil!"), but probably not that much. Better to roll up starting funds randomly and outfit your expedition as a team, using extra monies to hire porters and link-boys, and perhaps a donkey or mule to carry provisions.

I mean...if that's your style of Dungeons & Dragons. I suppose there are people who think that kind of thing is a needless waste of time when we can get to the slam-bang action. Or caravan guard job (get ready for goblin ambush!) and, you know, ignore the grit and granularity of boring encumbrance systems.

Hmmm...all of a sudden, I just got an interesting idea in my head. However, it's going to take a bit of work on my part, and I've got kids in need of provisioning. More later.

Happy 4th of July

Just in case folks were curious, I am back in Paraguay (have been back for a few days), after a rather delightful trip to Spain. I won't bore folks with the details, save to once again reiterate that it's a country I highly recommend visiting. I might get around to posting some pictures one of these days...

I will say that I had to chance to check out some actual battle axes from the 12th to 14th century while I was there (one of the nice things about a country that fought a lot of medieval wars both within and without its borders: it's got a lot of D&D-flavored museums). None of them were of of the long, "Dane axe" type made famous by the English housecarls, but even so...with a single exception...ALL of them would have required two-hands to use properly. A battle axe is just so damn unwieldy given the length of the haft, and the size of the blade. Even the one "exception" which I judged as single-handed based on its (relatively smaller) scale, was still a damn burly weapon. The shortness of the its haft would have allowed it to be used one-handed (presumably with a shield), but you would have had to have really tremendous arm strength, especially in any kind of protracted battle. We're talking forearms like tree trunks.

Consequently, I'm inclined to revise most everything I've written about battle axes over the years. That is, the B/X battle axe may actually be perfectly fine as modeled. *sigh*

Hope all the Americanos out there are having a good 4th. I really wish I could celebrate it with you.

A is for Axe of Indifference

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

A is for Axe of Indifference.

This two-handed battle axe is of the type often described as a "bearded" axe, with a long blade capable of hooking as well as chopping. The weapon is well-balanced and its blade holds a razor keen edge without the need for sharpening. The axe inflicts deep, terrible wounds and delights in doing so; though the wielder may strike last in a round (except when fighting zombies), blows from the axe of indifference have the potential to end fights quickly. Any attack roll of 20 or more...including bonuses  for both strength and the weapon's enchantment...results in the blow inflicting double damage AND severing a limb from the defender; roll D6:

1-2 Arm severed
3-4 Leg severed
5-6 Head severed (decapitated)

Giant-sized creatures (8 or more hit dice) are unaffected by the axe of indifference. Ogre-sized or larger creatures (4-7 hit dice) receive a saving throw versus death magic to resist the effect, though they still receive double damage on a severing strike, even with a successful save.

The axe of indifference is so named because it can be as dangerous to the wielder and her allies as to the foes faced. When engaged in melee involving multiple participants (friend or foe) , any missed attack roll requires the wielder to make an immediate, additional attack roll against a single randomly determined combatant within 5' of the wielder. If this second attack roll is successful, normal damage is inflicted (and severing effects if the roll is high enough); if the attack roll fails, the axe-wielder's turn ends.

If there are no additional combatants against which to make an attack roll, a wielder of the axe of indifference that misses her foe must make a save versus death magic or accidentally strike herself.

An individual whose arm or leg is severed is immediately incapacitated with shock and blood loss and unable to continue fighting; the DM may make exclude those opponents who might not suffer under such circumstances (a giant insect with multiple legs, for example, or a construct like a golem, gargoyle, or living statue). The victim of such a telling blow may do nothing but moan quietly while clutching their stump (hopefully staunching the bleeding). Though incapacitated, the individual's hit point total is reduced to the minimum amount fir its hit dice/level (for example, a 2 HD gnoll would be reduced to 2 hit points), unless damage from the blow would have reduced the creature's HPs to an a lesser amount. If the damage from the blow would have killed the creature anyway (reducing it to zero hit points or less) than it matters little whether or not severing occurred.

PLEASE NOTE: Unlike other editions of D&D, it is unnecessary in B/X for a body to be "whole" for the raise dead spell to function properly. Severed limbs from deceased individuals (including decapitated heads) can be reattached as part of the successful casting of the spell, though the raised individual will always bear the scars of the severing blow. At the DM's option, a cure serious wounds spell will reattach a severed arm or leg to a victim, so long as the spell is performed within ten rounds of the amputation; however, a reattached limb will be in a weakened state for D6 days (unable to use a weapon or shield effectively with a reattached arm, and half movement for a reattached leg). A cure serious wounds spell will not revive a decapitated character.

"Negotiate? Talk to the axe."

Assessing Damage

Jonathan N. posted the following comments on Wednesday's post regarding the B/X battle axe:

Huh. I would have made the battle axe just do 1d4+4 damage instead. Actually, 1d6+2 is probably more fair. Same average as 1d10.

Indeed, it IS the same average damage. But it's not the same range of damage, which for my game is the important part of the design model.

Back up for a moment. Recall D&D's original roots in CHAINMAIL, a tabletop war-game. It included a man-to-man element, but it was still of the "one hit equals one kill" variety: with a war game we are much more concerned with the movement of armies as a whole, not individual melees. Weapons were on a human scale, and humans (with the exception of some fantasy hero-types) of the "grunt" variety, regardless of arms and armor. One man = 1 die roll = 1 hit absorption...the standard unit of play from which all other units derive.

[a "hero," as an example attacked as four units, i.e. four humans, capable of rolling four dice to attack and absorbing four hits of damage. A "superhero" was the equivalent of eight units]

When you get to Men & Magic (volume 1 of OD&D, from which B/X is, more or less, directly derived), this standard unit mentality is still present. Heck, CHAINMAIL is the default combat system (with the "roll-D20-versus-AC" being an "alternative" option). The new game, however, is concerned with a smaller scale of action...heroic individuals operating at the skirmish level...and thus a more granular approach to combat is needed. Players aren't using armies in D&D, but individual characters...and losing one's character is the equivalent of losing one's entire army.

Enter hit points: the granular solution that fits the war gamer's paradigm. If your character is your "army," than each hit point represents a "grunt."  On the battlefield scale we're concerned with how one force attacks another force, and standard units (i.e. soldiers) are removed depending on the results of the attack. On the small scale we look at attacks on an individual (man-to-man) basis, to see how many hit point "units" are removed as the result of an attack.

Now, as I said, weapons are based on "human scale;" originally (in CHAINMAIL) a successful attack resulted in the removal of one unit, i.e. one soldier. But now that we are looking at a granular scale, we need to determine just how granular (that is, how many hit points) are possessed by a "standard unit." And the OD&D answer to that question is D6. That is how many hit points a one HD human soldier has in OD&D.

[remember that the D8 hit points per HD thing in B/X was a later adjustment in Supplement I (Greyhawk) that was carried over to Basic, AD&D, B/X, etc.]

One unit has 1 to 6 hit points. Thus, one human scale weapon inflicts 1 to 6 hit points of damage...this is the origin of the "all weapons do D6 damage" rule of OD&D and its descendants: Holmes, Moldvay, etc.

Once you know the "standard" elements involved, you can tweak and adjust. You can say that a heroic fighter PC (who starts with the lofty title of "veteran") can have MORE than the standard HPs: in OD&D it's 1D6+1; in B/X, it's 1D8. You can say that a 1st level magic-user only has 1D4 hit points (no doubt due to being a pasty academic) but that an experienced 2nd level magic-user has 2D4...she's been hardened by adventure and hiking in the wilderness. You can say that an ogre, a creature capable of sustaining damage enough to kill four men, receives 4 dice worth of hit points.

And you can adjust weapon damage appropriately as well. A dagger is capable of killing a sedentary citizen within 10 seconds (the length of a B/X combat round), but generally takes longer against a trained fighter, except under extreme circumstances (the fighter is weak and/or injured, the weapon is enchanted, etc.).

SO NOW (having got the preamble out of the way), let's look at the battle axe again. An attack roll is a check to see if an opponent can inflict damage in the round; the damage roll provides an indication of HOW that damage was inflicted based on the amount of the result.

A battle axe has a good range of damage (1 to 8...enough to kill a trained veteran with a perfect blow). Let's break that down in granular fashion:

1 point - a blow from the weapon's haft, the kind that will leave a nasty welt or bruise.
2 points - a severe blow from the weapon's haft to a vital joint or organ (like jamming the butt of the axe into the diaphragm like a blunt spear).
3 points - a concussive blow, capable of stunning the person with pain or blunt force trauma.
4 points - a strike with the axe head, causing a major laceration and probable blood loss.
5 points - a strike with the axe head that tears muscle, breaks bone, and/or severs major arteries.
6 points - a deep blow to the body, causing massive internal damage and blood loss.
7 points - a severing blow to a vulnerable joint or a full-on strike to the skull with the business end of the axe causing immense damage and probable death.
8 points - a wicked blow to the neck causing decapitation and immediate death.

This is a good range of damage, easily scalable to an opponent. For example, a concussive blow (3 points) versus a normal citizen who only possesses 3 hit points, might be a blow that puts the guy into a permanent coma. On the other hand the 3rd level fighter on the receiving end of an 8 point decapitating strike can consider that she just dodged a bullet (or, rather, an axe) and that her luck (those extra hit points from her greater experience) won't last forever.

Darkwolf's rotoscoped axe-work is pretty good.

Decreasing the range from 1-8 to 5-8/3-8 as Jonathan N suggests decreases the range of possibility inherent in a weapon like the battle axe. What's worse, it's no longer "human scale:" a weapon that inflicts a minimum of 3 hit points of damage (let alone 5!) will automatically kill three-quarters of the "normal human" population found in B/X. It leaves no room for the possibility of a glancing, non-fatal blow from a weapon that has more attack surfaces than just the axe head.

The +1 attack bonus I gave in Wednesday's post ("Can-Opener") stems from the ideas that A) a wedge-shaped axe-head delivered forcefully is good at penetrating armor, B) a mass weapon like an axe delivers enough concussive force to inflict damage even when failing to penetrate armor, and C) the battle axe is light enough (compared to other two-headed weapons), that A and B aren't offset by the weapon's overall lack of maneuverability compared to light, one-handed weapons (5 pounds versus 15 pounds).

[a +1 attack bonus is also enough to offset the +1 AC bonus provided by a shield, and "hooking" shields was a well-documented tactic of axe-use by Viking warriors and others; however, I know there are more than a few people who disagree with the amount of protection offered by a shield in B/X]

These are justifications to my overall design goal of making the battle axe a viable weapon choice in B/X, based on the B/X system as it exists. Increasing the average damage doesn't fit into my particular paradigm, but increasing the range of weapon damage (via the use of the variable weapon damage table) does.

For me, anyway. Plus it gives me a chance to roll dice of other shapes besides the D6. I've got them on-hand anyway.
; )

By The Way: I personally don't think this is anything that needs to be pointed out in a game text. The designers of Monopoly don't bother explaining why you receive $200 for Passing Go, after all. I realize that it's kind of "the thing" these days to include handy little sidebars in texts explaining design choices (boy, role-players sure are an over-analyzing bunch, aren't we?) but is it really worth it to make a cramped layout and increased page count? Well...that's a rant for another day.

B/X Battle Axe

It's been over a year since my last axe post. Better get to it.

Recently (um...the last couple days), I've been working on a new "campaign setting" project for B/X (see yesterday's post). Consequently, I started fooling around with all sorts of ideas for tweaking the standard B/X system in order to get something that's not only "setting appropriate" but that helps "fix" things I dislike about B/X. After coming up with several "out-o-the-box" changes and crunching numbers I've decided to discard pretty much ALL of these "great ideas." Turns out B/X really is plenty swell.

I should really remember to read my own blog posts.

Even so, very minor tweaks still in order. Maximum HPs at first level, for example (you don't want to know my "alternate system")...just need to increase the survivability a tad. Tempted to allow characters to begin at levels higher than 1st, even (we've seen this before: 2nd level for Dark Sun characters, and Gygax used a 3rd level starting point for his house rules), but I'm pretty sure I'm going to hold true to the standard.

Then there's Ye Old Battle Axe.

Fuzzy Skinner's been writing recently about the gradual conversion of his B/X campaign to 2nd edition AD&D, something I won't fault him for (even if AD&D2 isn't my cup of tea, I can honestly see the appeal...plus, "ramping up" complexity to one's game over time is valid and oft-taken tactic to keep one's campaign fresh). Of course, this kind of thing does raise challenges to evolving DM...his most recent post found him trying to reconcile the simple beauty of uniform damage with the variable complexity found in an Advanced edition of the game.

[yes, I offered him my two cents and a suggestion for how to handle it. Ever helpful, that's me]

Fuzzy found himself running up against a philosophy of realism (AD&D) that was at odds with the practicality of gameplay (B/X) to which he'd become accustomed. In the past, I (like Fuzzy) have tried to synthesize these two issues by finding "realistic" justifications that allowed me to keep my practical rules. But I'm starting to get to a point where I don't feel the need to justify myself...maybe because I've been reading thing's like The Dungeon's Front Door, I've started to come to the conclusion that a game only needs to be justified so much. If you spend too much time on it, it can become detrimental to the game.

Which can lead to a bad session of gaming.

Still, it's good to have a ready answer at hand for when one's player asks a question like, ''Why do daggers inflict the same amount of damage as a two-handed sword?" Some answer is better than no answer (I mean, your players are presumably literate and intelligent and thoughtful and are asking out of genuine curiosity regarding something that doesn't jibe with their world view...I don't think they're trying to bust your balls). Best to give some impression that you've at least thought about the rule so that the session can move back into the realm of play, rather than design/theory discussion.

Having said that, AND having tried on this new "service to the player" philosophy that is starting to make the rounds among thoughtful folks, I've come to a startling decision: I've decided to go back to the OPTIONAL Variable Weapon Damage concept (see table on page B27 of Moldvay, X25 of Cook/Marsh).

'JB! Say it ain't so!' Oh, but it IS so, Gentle Reader. And while I'd consider restricting damage bonuses (from STR) based on weapon type, I'm not going to do so. First off, it would add extra complication to the ease of the system that is; secondly, it would undermine my philosophical justification for the inclusion of the heroic STR bonuses of B/X.

[what do I mean by that? Remember that an attack roll is not a single strike, but an attempt to do damage over the course of the ten second round. A successful attack roll means you were able to inflict damage, and the damage roll gives you an idea of how that damage was accomplished based on how much damage was inflicted. Extra STR, valuable in melee, can represent all sorts of additional unarmed strikes or tactical maneuvering/grappling that allows for the infliction of additional damage. It does NOT mean a dude with an 18 strength is delivering a limb-amputating blow with his dagger]

As for why certain classes aren't allowed certain weapons (the thing that led to my previously posted...later published...idea about variable weapon damage by class)...well, that's a matter of setting detail. A magic-user's limitations might be tied to oaths, or taboos, or magnetic interference, or personal pride (necessary to have belief in self for magic to work), or whatever. It's just setting "color," easily laid out in a briefing of the particular game world.

Here comes the pain.

But then, we're back to battle axes.

The battle axe is a two-handed weapon...with all the inherent B/X limitations (no shield, lose initiative)...and yet only inflicts D8 damage, compared to other two-handed weapons (the pole arm and two-handed sword) which do D10. Considering the normal sword does D8 damage and is one-handed (thus possessing zero limitations), why would anyone choose a battle axe over a sword?

The stock answer I receive is: this is reflected in the cost (battle axes are 7gp; swords are 10gp). Okay, but a pole arm is 7gp, too, has the same limitations as a battle axe, but does D10 damage.

Well, the pole arm is three times as heavy (15# compared to 5#) is the follow-up rebuttal. But then,the two-handed sword is the same weight as a pole arm, has exactly the same specifications and is more than TWICE as expensive! You've fixed the problem with the battle axe (I guess...you can carry three for every one pole-arm), but now you're left wondering who'd ever purchase a zwiehander?

Still, forget all that...my concern is the battle axe because (as I've written many times) I LOVE me some battle axe. I love the weapon, its history, its concept; heck, I even dig the name...just rolls off the tongue. How can I make it a viable option for an adventurer, without turning it into a 7gp vorpal sword (i.e. something everyone wants to purchase).  AND (equally important) without messing too much with the B/X rules as written. Because, in all honesty, I personally think that the battle axe IS scaled correctly, both price-wise and damage-wise, with the other weapons on the B/X list.

Here's what I came up with:

Can-Opener: a character wielding a battle axe two-handed receives a +1 bonus to the attack roll.

Versatile: a fighter (not a dwarf, elf, halfling, or thief) with a STR of 16 may wield a battle axe with one-hand, thus allowing the use of a shield; however, when doing so the battle axe only does D6 damage.

Wear & Tear: non-magical weapons break on any miss if the attack roll before modification is a 1 (swords only) or 1-2 (all other weapons).

I think that should about do it.

[I actually really like the look of these...in B/X the strongest enchanted "axe" is +2, and so the can-opener bonus brings the hit bonus up to the maximum of other melee weapons. The wear & tear is a pretty standard "weapon break" rule and helps to distinguish pole arms from two-handed swords. I could certainly live with this in a campaign that included variable weapon damage]

Later, Gators.

Poleaxed

I am most definitely not a historian, though I sometimes portray one on my blog. So it is that I've been spending waaaaay too much time this week researching the evolution of the medieval helmet and poleaxes.

The former is not such a big deal: though I can now tell you the differences between bascinets and pot helms and sallets and armets and barbutas and...well, everything from the 12th century to the 15th...mechanically they don't need much distinct modeling. It is nice to finally figure out what a "great helm" actually is after all these years.

You can blame Charles Taylor's great blog post on the subject of the poleaxe for my week-long obsession with that weapon.  It's led me to videos, blog posts, medieval weapon forums, and downloading all those weapon texts Gary Gygax cites in the bibliography of his Unearthed Arcana: Armour and Weapons in the Middle Ages by Charles Henry Ashdown, Armour & Weapons by Charles Ffoulkes, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages by Charles Oman.

[just by the way...what is it that leads people named "Charles" to put so much time and effort into the study of medieval Europe's martial arts? That's kind of weird, don't you think?]

The poleaxe (no, I am not going to call it a "pollaxe" like the entry in wikipedia...I don't care if some folks believe that it is etymologically derived from the word poll - the Oxford English dictionary has no such word as "pollaxe," but there IS a word "poleaxe." Whatever the etymology, the word is now spelled poleaxe. Deal with it)...

The poleaxe or poleax (as my blogger auto-correct keeps wanting to write) gets incredibly short shrift in AD&D which is pretty surprising given A) its importance to knightly combat and B) Gary's love of pole arms and the attention he places on their distinct differences. There is, in fact, no poleaxe in AD&D...nothing on the equipment list to buy, nothing in the extensive weapon charts detailing its length and weight and space required.  Nada. The only place you find it is in the Unearthed Arcana's appendix on pole arms wherein Gygax writes:

"Strictly speaking, a pole axe is nothing more than an axe head of any sort set upon a long haft in order to deliver an earlier and more forceful blow. It can be double-bitted, backed by a spike, and/or topped off with a dagger (spear) point, but is still recognizable as an axe."

It appears that Gygax considers the poleaxe to be pretty much the same thing as a "battle axe" (of the two-handed variety) even though this isn't really the case. In fact, the weight and lengths for axes in the PHB are a pretty good representation for those distinct weapons (even if the space required might be disputed). A hand axe (1.5' long) is a good representation of the one-handed axe that's good for throwing (think tomahawk) while the battle axe ("circa 4'") can represent everything up to the Danish long axe (which appears to only have exceeded this length for "ceremonial" examples). The poleaxe by definition exceeds 4' and are depicted in medieval art and combat manuals as being close to the same height as the the person wielding 'em (in other words, pretty close to 6').

This is a very short poleaxe.

Putting a small, thin axe-head on the end of a six foot lever gives you a lot of armor-penetrating power...these videos from Cold Steel Knives for their poleaxe are pretty cool (dig them destroying the car), even if they're not using them in a true combat fashion. This video from the AEMMA (the "Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts") is a close approximation of armored combat: something of a hybrid between quarterstaff and baseball, though probably should include more grappling techniques. Of course, the weapons they use are bec de corbins, not true "poleaxes."

At least, not in the English sense of the phrase. The books Gygax uses for his bibliography are pretty clear in their descriptions and illustrations. They're getting their information from the Tower of London Armouries and from private collections both within England and without. However, more recent (Gygax's books are from the early 20th century) articles found on the internet (see here and here) seem to equate "poleaxe" with long-handled war hammers. They appear to be drawing their info from non-English weapon treatises (that I can't read). And, yes, I'd agree the fighting style is the same...but the way the weapon delivers killing damage to an opponent is quite different. Neither a crow-beak nor a hammer are going to sever limbs like an actual axe will.

So many possibilities.

A true poleaxe is a devastating weapon. It can hook, trip, and grapple just like other similar weapons. It can pierce with its spear head just like the others (see the Lucerne hammer for the more extreme form). It can batter and concuss just like a "polehammer" if backed with a hammer, or hook and tear mail when backed by a spike. But the axe head gives vicious cutting power that (at the end of a 6' staff) may be unmatched by any other weapon.

"The War-hammer and Battle-axe need but little description. They were generally used by horsemen, and their general form only varies in detail from implements in use at the present day. The Pole-axe was a weapon in great request for jousting on foot, in the 'champ clos'. The blade is much like the halbard, but at the back is a hammer-shaped projection with a roughened surface."

(from Armour & Weapons by Charles Ffoulkes, 1909)

This is the weapon that knights wanted to use when they were in champ clos (combat on foot). Not sword and board. Give me the longest axe you can find; back it with a hammer, top it with a hard spike. Now that's knightly combat, folks. Dig it.

Who says cavaliers won't use pole arms? Crap on that!

Church of the Axe

As many of my readers know, much to my shame, I’m a bit of a TV watcher. Why “to my shame?” Because, like video games, television can be an unforgivable time suck that isolates one from the world and people around you, and yet does not allow the mind or body to rest. Of course video games can be actually ACTIVE and ENGAGING…the television just force feeds your brain whatever the producers deem appropriate.

I realize that’s a bit harsh, and that watching some television shows can actually stimulate conversation or become a “group-bonding” activity…like sporting events or the Academy Awards…and that other shows on television can be educational, inspiring, and teach us things about life, ourselves, and others. But that’s not usually the case. Fact is, there’s a lot of crap on TV…and watching a guy shoot arrows into bad guys while his sister bangs the local meth head (that’s the basic plot of Arrow) isn’t doing a lot for MY brain except providing some fun, superhero-style entertainment.

It is what it is, folks.

Yet, intellectual snob that I am, I can usually hold myself down to just a handful of “regular” shows (thank God we got rid of HBO! Prior to the birth of our child we were watching pretty much everything they were putting out)...and the occasional (terrible, terrible) Mariners game. And (besides Arrow) I try to limit myself to shows of the “quality” variety…Downton Abbey and Mad Men, for example, or Parks and Rec (for funny). Such “sitcom crack” as Friends and Sex and the City have fallen by the wayside.

But now I’ve got Vikings.

Gosh, what a great show! I was up till 2am the other night catching up on the most recent episodes…and to put that it in perspective, my dogs get me up anywhere between 4:30 and 5:30am every morning, rain or shine, weekends or work days (on week days I usually go back to bed until 6ish, when I get up to ready myself for a 7am start time). Sleep is at a premium in my home (it’s not often I get to bed before midnight most days), and my main luxury these days is taking a two or three hour “power nap” on the weekends when my son is having his daily siesta…assuming I don’t need to run errands or blog or write books or something.

But for Vikings…well, it’s “axe crack” people. And I’ve blogged before of my love of axes.

Vikings is a new show airing on the History Channel, and is pretty much better and more interesting than any single television drama currently airing on TV, with the exception of Mad Men. It has great acting, great writing, and beautiful production value…and damn if it isn’t pretty damn historically accurate (I say this as an amateur armchair historian of Norse culture, so take that with a grain of salt). And it’s different…O so different…from any Viking show or film I’ve ever seen. I mean, it takes pains to really try to portray the mindset of 8^th century Norse culture.

[BTW: I know the show has received some criticism for being historically INACCURATE with regard to clothing and the Danes lack of knowledge of “the West”…that’s not what I’m referring to. Just hang with me for a bit, okay?]

The show depicts the life and exploits of Ragnar Lodbrok, one of the most famous heroes of the (real life) Norse sagas, including everything from his family life to his raiding expeditions to his political rivalries. For myself, the series is most fascinating because of its portrayal of the Norse personality. Often, Vikings in film are simply cardboard berserkers or violent thugs or parodies…individuals with modern, western values that just happen to do the barbarian thing for a job (think of the Capitol One commercials, or the characters portrayed in the film Erik the Viking). It’s like Scottish highlanders…the concept has been so romanticized and caricatured over the years that it’s difficult to find a historically accurate depiction of their brain. Vikings, I feel, does a better job of this than anything I’ve ever seen.

Not a nice man.

Ragnar, for example, is the hero of the show. Ragnar has all the classic virtues of the Norse people: he is courageous, he is clever, he is honorable, he is dutiful to his family. He is also a complete raging asshole and murderous bastard by our present standards. Let there be no discussion about it…the Norsemen had a real “us/them” mentality, and sailing into someone’s country and butchering unarmed folks (not to mention raping and pillaging) was all considered “fair play.” Ragnar is not a very nice person, at all and in his culture there really is a premium value placed on strength…Ragnar and his crew have nothing but contempt for the weaklings they raid, and Ragnar holds the loyalty of his men first and foremost due to having proven himself a strong warrior. His ambition and cunning combine to elevate him above his station of birth, but his brethren would not follow him for these reasons alone (his ability to get them rich plunder is a definite plus towards earning their loyalty and respect as well). At times, he exhibits a degree of compassion and curiosity that marks him different from his fellows…it’s obvious that he is unusual and marked for greatness…but neither one of these traits trump his “Norse nature;” when it’s time to fight there’s no hesitation.

At the same time, the Norse are more than just axe-wielding maniacs. They have a great sense of humor, a great sense of pride, that practicality and peculiar melancholy that marks Scandinavians even today…and an intense reverence for their own gods and religion. Man, it is so refreshing to see, when so much of today’s “historical fiction” films and shows tend to gloss over or ignore religion.  For most of our history, humans have lived in worshipful fear and awe of our God or gods…something conveniently forgotten in our production of otherwise high quality, historical films.

[as an aside, this is why I find the recent Clash of the Titans remake so incredibly stupid. The idea some Greek, even a hero like Perseus, would dare stand in defiance of the gods? Utterly asinine in a film full of asinine bullshit]

Vikings (the show) doesn’t ignore the fact that humans have ambition, nor that they are as prone to foibles and frailty as we ever have been, but the underpinning of the earth and reality is the divine, and it’s something that needs to be respected at all costs. Prayer…whether to Odin or to Christ (Christians are well represented on the other side)…is often-used, both in supplication and thanksgiving, and while the heathens may question the validity of the Christian God as much as the Christians condemn Odin, neither side dares profane their OWN religion.

There’s a great bit in the most recent episode wherein one of Ragnar’s men agrees to be baptized so that the English feel more comfortable bargaining with the heathens (the English are trying to pay off the Norsemen to leave them alone). Rollo, Ragnar’s brother agrees to do so, mostly for expedience…he doesn’t actually believe in the Christian God and considers the whole thing a joke. However, when it’s pointed out that his “joke” is probably an affront to Odin (if not outright blasphemy), he quakes in mortal terror…and Rollo is a big guy and pretty bright and ambitious besides. Here's the thing: for a culture that believed in heaven as “Valhalla,” snubbing Odin is a good way to get yourself left behind…plus, the concepts of “divine blessing” in the old Norse culture really boiled down to “being lucky” and he might have felt he’d just signed up for a big heaping helping of bad luck.

To make up for it, Rollo goes apeshit the next time he has a chance to kill some Christians.

Much of the action of Vikings takes place in the old English kingdom of Northumbria, where they happily pillage and raid, and unlike other Viking-centric shows, the people of England are given plenty of time in the program as well…these aren’t faceless victims, cardboard extras existing only to be axe-fodder for the program's protagonists. Neither are they set-up as simple “antagonists” to “heroic Ragnar” nor “poor me Christians” falling to the Viking swords. Again, the series attempts to treat them in the same neutral light…they have their Christian humility and piety, but they also have their selfishness and arrogance. The king of Northumbria offs a guard captain that failed him (in Darth Vader-like style), but tries to rescue his brother from the clutches of the Vikings, and he exhibits his own cunning and ruthlessness (only fitting, since the sagas say he's the one that eventually kills Ragnar). Religion again comes to the forefront: King Aelle is not Henry the VIII to throw off the dominion of Rome and start up the Anglican Church…back in the 8^th century there was only ONE “holy, Catholic, and apostolic church” and you were going to HELL if you didn’t do your time on Sunday (a fact rudely exploited by Ragnar in one of his early raids).

There’s another good bit where the English lords are debating whether or not the Vikings have been sent by God as punishment, or by the devil as a trial, or are simply barbarous men, and the ANSWER to that question is IMPORTANT to how they deal with and respond to the threat (this is part of the reason for the baptism deal). When they invite the  Norsemen to dine, they are affronted that the Vikings dig-in to the victuals without waiting for grace to be said, and the contrast is stark between the two cultures. And yet the English king praying at his chapel for strength and guidance is no different from the Vikings' earl praying at a shrine to his gods in an earlier episode. These are not just religious “touches” like the scant attention paid to the gods in Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator…this is a statement of the way these people were: devout, reverent, concerned with the fates God (or the gods) had set in store for them, doing what they could (through their bishops or shamans) to determine what their deities’ Divine Will was.

Because that was important. If you come from a culture that believes God is All-Powerful, than you better try to figure out what He wants for you…otherwise, you’re likely to misstep and get yourself and/or your family/tribe all bloodied and butchered. It was yet another hurdle in a life already fraught with uncertainty and danger…a hard life of war and suffering and starvation. A shared spirituality was part of the foundation of a community (in addition to language and cuisine).

I’ve been reading up on Joan of Arc (again) with an eye towards continuing my series on subclasses and filters (I think ol’ Saint Joan makes a good model for the paladin class…along with Roland and Galahad). The fact that she was entrusted with leading the French army in battle as a PEASANT GIRL is amazing, no matter how eloquent or charismatic a speaker she might have been. Even winning a few battles, or being brave enough to lead the charge from the forefront, isn’t incentive enough (IMO) to say, 'okay, the Maid of Orleans can be our general.' It speaks volumes to A) the inherent spirituality and faith of the culture coupled with B) Joan's ability to convince that culture (including the worldly king, lords, and fighting men) that she was an actual instrument of that God and faith. And that was the 15^th century…several centuries removed from the ("less sophisticated") time period of Ragnar and Co.

Do folks see where I’m going with this? This is, of course, a gaming blog…not a religious blog, nor a television blog, nor a Viking blog (though people might be forgiven for mistaking it for the latter). And in fantasy role-playing games, especially D&D, there is a tendency to secularize even our pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds. “Oh, yeah, there are gods…that’s where the cleric gets his powers. But I don’t have to worry about that aspect of the game world.” You don’t? Why not? What “divine right” gives your fantasy world ruler the authority to be king? You better find out if you want your character to be king someday, otherwise you’ll never be more than a pretender. What power do you think it is chooses whether or not your adventure ends in success or terrible, terrible death?

Even if you, personally, don’t believe in creationism, what better setting for a radical, supernatural means of world creation than the setting of a fantasy RPG? Even if you, yourself, don’t believe in the power of God and fate, why wouldn’t your character? Part of role-playing is playing a role, right? If Ragnar the axe murderer can say the occasional prayer or make appropriate sacrifice or find reverence for the rituals of his culture, why can’t Bork the Barbarian or Roderick the Fighter or Zimsum the Magic-User?

There are, of course, other things to be taken from the Vikings television show for use in a role-playing game: examples of adventuring, of how people with high moral character/integrity can still be villainous rogues in action, examples of "what we're doing this all for anyway" (family, personal ambition, romance, etc.), as well as how to handle political intrigue and inter-party conflict...interestingly, the latter are both handled the same.

With an axe.

: )

D6 Dopplehanders

So, I spent a good part of today thinking about shields in the D&D game because, to be quite honest, I think there's a damn crapload of ignorance out there. Shields in D&D are plenty awesome and a lot of the nay-sayers sound a might silly to my ears.

However, in running the numbers for shields (in anticipation of throwing up a blog post that proved my my point of view - duh) I had to work out the math on two-handed weapons, some of my personal favorite things in the whole world and something that I've attempted to deal with in a number of different ways over the last couple years.

I figure we better deal with that issue first.

OD&D (the original Little Brown Books) state that all hits inflict 1-6 points of damage "unless otherwise noted" (there aren't any notes regarding weapons, though some monsters inflict more damage). There are many two-handed weapons on the LBB equipment list...none are any different from any of the single-handed weapons.

In the B/X Basic rules (based largely on the LBBs), Moldvay writes this:

AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (1d6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable. If the Variable Weapon Damage system (hereafter) is used, check the weapon type to find how much damage each weapon will do (adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses or penalties).

Directly beneath the Variable Weapon Damage table on page B27, we find the following notes:

Whenever a two-handed weapon is used (including pole arms), the attacker cannot use a shield (this may reduce the Armor Class of the attacker) and will always lose the initiative, whatever the roll (see page B23).

Interesting that the VWD table distinguishes quarrels as two-handed and arrows as not. In the past, I assumed this was to show crossbows attacked last in combat like two-handers. However, this is left unclear, and it is equally unclear whether or not the "two-handed weapon strikes last" rule is standard OR if it is an optional rule to only be used in conjunction with the VWD table.

The Cook/Marsh Expert set is more explicit. On page X4 it discusses some of the differences between the Holmes and Moldvay Basic sets including the following:

WEAPONS (Optional)

Two-Handed Weapons. Heavy two-handed weapons (flail, battle axe, pole arms, etc.) may strike once per round, but strike last in the round, regardless of initiative.

Crossbows. Crossbows may be fired once every two rounds, taking one round to load and one to fire.

In the Encounter chapter, it again lists - and expands - the Variable Weapon Damage table, although this time there is no mention of the table as being optional or of D6 being the standard damage for all weapon attacks by characters (PC and NPC). Interestingly, crossbow bolts are still listed as "two-handed" (and arrows are NOT) and there is no mention of the flail anywhere, despite the reference on in the Introduction.

[*sigh*] B/X isn't perfect, folks. But we knew that.

We'll skip the later editions which make the VWD table (or variations thereof) the "standard practice." For me personally, I have found that the D6 damage for all weapons works the best...both practically and philosophically. And, yes, in my youth I used ALL the variant tables I could find...back then, I played AD&D and it was the height of cool to use a pickaxe from the Dungeoneers Survival Guide when said weapon did 1D20 damage.

I've gotten smarter since then.

But two-handed weapons have continued to trouble me...all the moreso because I LOVE a big ol' axe or two-handed sledge. I want their to be an advantage to using such a beast in combat...after all, people DID use them in combat, forsaking the benefit of a shield (more on that later) for the sure grip and intimidating reach such a weapon would give them.

But there is no benefit to using a two-handed weapon in melee in B/X play. Well, sure, if you use the VWD then a two-handed sword or pole-arm allows you to roll D10 damage...but a battle axe only does D8 damage, the same as a "normal" sword...and the axe was a LOT more prevalent on the field of battle during most of the bronze-iron age than the arming sword. And for good reason: it kicked hella' ass.

And anyway, I'm not using the VWD anymore, for reasons I explained in my earlier post.

And let's back-up for a quick second...just what constitutes a one-handed versus a two-handed weapon anyway? A Scottish claymore was generally considered a two-handed weapon, though many highlanders still carried a shield and used it with one-hand. The German zwiehander (a weapon very similar to the Otus illustration on page B12) was even bigger, being about 6' long (with a 4'-5' blade) and was only used two-handed.

On the other hand, many one-handed swords were used with a two-handed grip: the estoc, the knightly arming sword, the "longsword" were all useable both one- and two- handed, and often were...especially when being used to pierce heavy (plate) armor. Many were designed to be gripped with one hand on the blade, in order to work like a medieval pry-bar when stabbing your opponent to death.

Especially when considering these weapons were designed for use in man-to-man combat, it is ridiculous to think that they would provide some sort of extra damage bonus when used against monstrous fantasy creatures. Against these beasts, one would be well-advised to stick to tried and true methods of destruction: lancing the beast with a long spear or hitting it with the sharp end of an axe.

The battle axe is terribly maligned in most every edition of D&D, though most especially AD&D as I've written before. And it shouldn't be, dammit! Even if I miss with the sharp end, smacking someone with the blunt end of a mass weapon is going to ring his bell, if not induce death from blunt force trauma. How many whacks with the axe is your wood and hide shield deflect before, oh, I'm sorry, did my blade bite a 3" gash in your forearm and smash your ulna? What did you expect? It's an axe. Good thing you had a vambrace.

But I digress (as usual)...here's the thing. A two-handed war sledge, or axe, or greatsword that splits the head of an opponent is accomplishing the same thing as a one-handed mace or hatchet or saber that splits the head of an opponent. The two-handed weapons mind do it in a slightly messier fashion, and may require a bit of a "wind up" but dead is dead is dead.

I don't have a problem with two-handed weapons striking last in a round; a lighter weapon or a natural beast attack is faster by comparison. But there IS a reason for using two-handed weapons and that reason is, for the most part, the same as the reason for most weapon development over the years.

Armor penetration. To get to the squishy parts on the inside.

A one-handed blade or hatchet might glance off a heavy templar helm, whereas a two-handed flail or bearded axe might can cave the damn thing in. Two-handed weapons - blunt, sharp, or stabbing - were crafted with a mind towards getting the killing part of the tool into the frail human body that was so well protected by man's ingenuity. That being said, a two-handed weapon does do some truly impressive damage with a direct hit, even on a blow that's not immediately mortal.

So here're the new rules for play-testing:

• Two-handed weapons strike last in a melee (already standard in my games).
• Two-handed weapons do D8 instead of D6 damage (already implemented; worked great in my "B/X Shadowrun" game as well).
• Two-handed weapons enjoy a +1 bonus to attack rolls (to represent damage penetration).

I do not want to do different types of weapon versus different types of armor, or anything like that...combat in B/X is abstract and keeping things as simple as possible seems the best policy at this point.

Now some folks who think shields are "too weak" as written may feel these rules are too much incentive for characters to not use shields; but we'll get to that in the next post. Suffice is to say, I feel two-handed weapons NEED a huge incentive, 'cause as it is, the shield-bearer has some pretty big advantages over the warrior with the dopplehander. The question is not "why would anyone use a shield?" The question is, why would anyone NOT use a shield?

But we'll get to that later. Time to hit the hay.

Addendum to Axe Meanderings (New Rules!)

So out of curiosity as much as anything else, after yesterday’s post regarding the paltry mechanics of the axe (in comparison to the sword), I reviewed both my Players Handbook weapon charts and my copy of Hackmaster (I don’t own the 2nd edition PHB anymore) to see when would the “axe man” have an advantage over a normal sword.

Turns out: never.

The broad sword, with a better base damage than the battle axe, has an equal or better attack advantage against ALL TYPES of armor (as well as a better base damage). The long sword has nearly as good an attack advantage as the broad sword, and much better damage against size Large creatures. In addition, both the broad AND long swords are significantly faster (Speed Factor 4 for each versus the battle axe’s Speed Factor 7), and the battle axe outweighs the long sword for encumbrance calculations (it is equal to the broad sword).

In all respects, the one-handed sword trumps the axe.

[as a side note, I don’t see anything that lists the battle axe as a two-handed weapon in AD&D. I don’t know why I have always thought that, unless it was carry-over from learning to play with B/X which explicitly states the battle axe is a two-handed weapon]

In Hackmaster, the difference is nearly as significant. Both swords do more damage and are faster, speed-wise. While there are no Weapon vs. Armor charts, swords and axes are both rated as “Hacking Weapons” and thus carry the exact same bonus versus armor. So assuming your 1st level character has enough money to purchase a sword, there’d no reason, mechanics-wise, to ever choose an axe. At least if one’s character is a human (dwarves in Hackmaster can purchase an “axe bonus” talent that might make it a better choice…I haven’t bothered to crunch the numbers).

Anyway, I was considering doing my own “weapon versus armor” chart for B/X play (19 weapons and only 4 options for armor? Yeah, that’s a bit less ambitious than re-vamping AD&D). But the more I consider it, the more I think “this way lays madness.” Because it kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a simple abstract combat system.

Early on in this blog’s history, I praised the abstract combat system of D&D. I find it simple and elegant in the extreme, as long as one provides a bit of imagination and doesn’t think it is literally representative. That is, the numbers represent something more than their “face value:”

• One dice roll does NOT equal “one swing.” An attack roll represents one’s ability to do damage in a round, based on class (training) and level (experience) versus enemy’s AC (defensive ability). A character with multiple attack rolls has the ability to find more than one opening for doing damage…or may simply have more opportunities of rolling damage dice (i.e. those three attacks might still only represent a single, well coordinated, well aimed blow for greater (multiple) damage).
• One damage roll does NOT represent one stab of the blade or bite of the axe. It represents the damage that has been inflicted in the round by the character. Maybe a low roll indicate you hit with the flat of the weapon or thumped the person with the pommel. Maybe a high roll indicates you kicked your opponent in the gut, knocking the breath out of him, while setting up a killing blow; maybe high damage represents multiple bleeding lacerations.
• Hit points do NOT represent anything more than a character’s ability to remain active and engaged in combat/adventuring activity. They do not necessarily represent health or fitness or size or anything else…only how much damage it takes to kill the character. A magic-user with 3 hit points may be in prime health, gets full nights of sleep, eats a vegan diet, meditates, does yoga, and has the potential to live 200 years…but is not savvy enough to avoid being stabbed through the heart by the alcoholic, chain-smoking, syphilitic mercenary.
• Armor class represents MORE than “how hard it is to land a blow.” It represents the potential chance for an opponent to REDUCE HIT POINTS via an ATTACK ROLL. This can mean the armor’s ability to absorb damage from blows that land, the maneuverability of the character wearing it, the adjusted perception of one’s ability to dodge incoming fire due to a helmet, etc. All of these factors are boiled down into a single armor class rating. Based on extensive field research, I’m certain. ; )

So while I could possibly create a table of bonuses and penalties for various B/X weapons against armor class, do I want to start down that particular road of complexity? After all, there are other reasons for choosing some weapons over others For example, a weapon’s speed and ease of use…am I going to add Speed Factor to my B/X games? Sturdiness…should I institute rules for weapons breaking? Do I need to look at weapon attacks versus different types of shield materials (wood, hide, metal)?

Should I look at the DEFENSIVE VALUE of weapons? After all, it’s easier to block a blow with an axe or hafted weapon than with a dagger. Or maybe I need to check defensive value of weapons against OTHER weapons…a hafted weapon is great for blocking an over-hand chop or side-swing, but fairly useless against a thrusting spear or sword. Of course, the ability to use one’s weapon in a defensive way should probably be tied to class and level just like one’s ability to attack.

Finally, let’s not forget that most combat encounters in the average D&D game is against non-humanoid monster, for who none of these rules apply. Is it worth the time and energy to work up these tables for the occasional NPC or humanoid encounter? And does there need to be SEPARATE tables for different humanoids? Does a bugbear wield a pole-arm faster than an orc? Does an ogre use a two-handed sword like a short sword? Might a mace fail to dent a fire giant’s armor while a long sword slips easily through the chinks?

Opening this can of worms can easily devolve into crazed micro-managing rule drafting…something I’m really not too interested in for B/X play. Personally, I think the best way to handle the whole “lack of love” for the axe and the war hammer and the spear, etc. is to make all weapons EQUALLY DEADLY. They were, after all, designed to kill people. Stabbing someone in the throat with a dagger, crushing their skull with a club, or eviscerating them with a sword stroke all return the same result: dead, dead, dead. A player (or character’s) personal weapon preference should be based on that: personal preference, NOT on how effective (mechanically) the weapon is.

Now for people that don’t like the idea that a knife-fighting wizard does the same 1D6 damage as a barbarian dishes out with a two-handed sword I can suggest only this:

- Strength bonuses (and perhaps add double the bonus for a two-handed weapon), and/or
- Use my Variable Damage by Class tables (so warriors do more damage than wizards when it comes to wielding weapons).

Regarding the former (two-handed weapons): I’m not sure I like the idea that a character does inherently more damage with a two-handed weapon than with a one-handed weapon. In general, two-handers are more difficult to use and slower (which means fewer opportunities to swing and strike a “telling blow”). That being said, a STRONG character has the muscle to use these weapons more effectively and can put a LOT of force into a two-handed blow. I say just DOUBLE the strength bonus when using a two-handed weapon (strength penalties are un-affected). So when Conan (Strength 17 in my B/X world) two-hands his broad sword, he adds +4 to damage (instead of +2). His attack roll is still only made at +2 (remember that an attack roll does not indicate a swing, but rather the potential ability to do damage, and a high strength character can use muscle and leverage to over-bear and beat-down opponents in melee…but it doesn’t matter whether he’s doing this with a great axe or a sword & shield combo).

If you choose this option, you might want to modify the Variable Damage by Class table as follows:

Clerics/Halflings: 1D6 Damage, 1D4 Damage for small, Light weapons (daggers and such)
Dwarves/Elves/Fighters: 1D8 Damage, 1D6 for Light weapons
Thieves: 1D6 Damage for all weapons
Magic-Users: 1D4 Damage for all weapons

This is only applicable to MELEE weapons. Missile weapons damage is un-changed from my earlier tables.

[NOTE: in B/X play it is assumed that characters have had training in any weapon they can use (there are no weapon proficiencies) so they are already using the weapon to its “greatest potential.” A character using a sword against a foe in plate armor, for example, will two-hand his weapon by gripping the blade and try to drive the point into an arm pit or under the chin, rather than bouncing slices off the breastplate. A character with a war hammer will know whether it’s better to land a crushing blow with the flat, or reverse the weapon to hit with the point. The random damage roll determines how well the character succeeds at these tactics with the opportunities presented in combat; these opportunities represented by the characters ability to succeed with an attack roll, based on training (class) and experience (level). Hope that all makes sense!]

Oh, one more thing for those not playing B/X or Labyrinth Lord: for the sake of completeness, bonuses to melee based on Strength are:

STR 3: -3 to hit and damage
STR 4-5: -2 to hit and damage
STR 6-8: -1 to hit and damage
STR 9-12: no adjustment in melee
STR 13-15: +1 to hit and damage
STR 16-17: +2 to hit and damage
STR 18: +3 to hit and damage

So with the optional “two-handed damage bonus” a character would receive either a +2, +4, or +6 bonus to melee damage ONLY when using a two-handed weapon (as long as his or her strength was greater than 12).

: )

Axe Meanderings

Welp, its Tuesday again which (for those in the astrological know) means it’s a MARS day. Tuesday, is of course the English form of “Tyr’s Day,” Tyr being the closest equivalent to the Roman god of war. According to Wikipedia, it was considered bad luck for the 13th of the month to fall on a Tuesday (probably due to the intersection of Martian and Uranian energies). Great…I was born on a Tuesday the 13th. That’s probably why I’m considered an “Earthquake” in Mesoamerican (Mayan/Aztec) astrology.

And I seem to be feeling the Martian pull today. Perhaps due to having Frazetta on the mind, I’ve been researching axe cultures (Viking and otherwise) all morning, as well as the technical differences between the various types of axe used in warfare, past and present (apparently the U.S. Marines dig on an updated version of the Amerindian tomahawk…go figure).

The axe is probably the most under-appreciated weapon in pre-D20 Dungeons & Dragons. Well I know I failed to appreciate it in my youth. Once one gets to D20, you have all sorts of players signing up to wield the weapon due to A) size rules allowing it to be wielded one-handed, and B) increased critical damage. Sure, there’s a trade-off as the axe has a lower crit threshold than the sword (only talking martial weapons here), but as far as the ability to do huge amounts of damage at random, the axe became king in D20.

Which, of course, makes it the ideal weapon to stick in the hands of monstrous (ORC) hordes if you’re a not-so-nice DM.

To explain, one has to understand that randomly rolled critical hits favors the DM side of the screen. Why? Because of the numeric superiority of the DM’s infinite monster list. No matter how many foes are slain, the DM can always whip up a new batch of encounters, all of the appropriate level. BUT level means little when one is only worried about rolling a 20.

BAB +1 versus AC 20…needs a 20 to achieve a critical threat with axe.
BAB +5 versus AC 20…needs a 20 to achieve a critical threat with axe.
BAB +9 versus AC 20…needs a 20 to achieve a critical threat with axe.

See how that works? The trick is to get as many attacks rolling as possible to increase that chance of the critical being met (i.e. to increase the chance of a 20 being rolled). Then you get that big damage multiplier (nice when accompanied by a high strength humanoid like, say, an orc).

Anyhoo, I don’t play those new-fangled versions of D&D anymore, so fortunately I don’t have to give a shit about the math involved. Let’s talk about the “old-fangled” version.

In OD&D, all weapons do 1D6 damage, so whether you want an axe or a sword, you’re doing pretty much the same thing.

In B/X (my game of choice) almost everyone uses the Variable Damage by Weapon rules. Here’s how the axe breaks down:

Hand Axe, 1D6 damage, can be thrown
Battle Axe, 1D8 damage, two-handed (no shield, strikes last)

Compared to:

Normal Sword, 1D8 damage

Now since any class in B/X can use the normal sword (except clerics and magic-users, neither of whom can use axes either), Why O Why would anyone choose an axe over the straight-forward blade?

Style? Maybe. In my experience, no one does. Like it or not, B/X facilitates a gamist creative agenda which means “winning” (or “overcoming challenges”) is a serious component to game play, and people will spring that extra 3gps from their wallets for a normal sword over a battle axe EVERY TIME. Sure some fighters might pick up the two-handed sword or pole arm (pole AXE) for the extra damage, but dwarves and halflings never pull a 2-handed battle axe over a 1-handed sword…why the hell should they?

Because dwarves are depicted with axes? Well, yeah, they’re depicted as short Vikings…and the Viking axe was ubiquitous because it was cheap and available compared to swords. Swords were status symbols as much as they were tools of warfare…if you could get your grubby gauntlets on one, you would.

Which I suppose makes it appropriate that all adventurers carry swords. After all, adventures are NOT “Normal Men.”

Still, while swords may have been the weapon of status in the “old days” they weren’t always the weapon of choice on the field of battle. The English housecarls of the 11th century used the battle axe as their primary weapon and the axe was (in general) a better weapon against heavily armored opponents than a standard arming sword.

[of course, the mace and warhammer were the melee weapons of choice to use against an opponent in plate armor…something not really modeled in B/X Dungeons & Dragons either]

1st edition AD&D does provide tables showing increased/decreased effectiveness of various types of weapon against different armor types. But I’ve met plenty of folks that pay no attention to these tables (hell, I don’t even know if they’re present in OSRIC), and I know that I, too, have been guilty of ignoring/forgetting to check these while “in the heat of battle.” And if they’re not being used (along with speed factor and weapon length/space required) than what’s the point of looking at anything besides the damage roll? Again…is “style” the only thing that makes a difference in the PCs choice of an axe?

Well, it did for me…eventually. Though I was drinking at the time and in a “devil-may-care” type of mood. The one time I played 2nd edition AD&D as a player (not as a DM) I was told to roll up an 8th level fighter and pick a “kit” for him using one of those brown books. I decided I would model the character’s look and feel off Frazetta's Death Dealer. I believe I used a “barbarian kit” (I really don’t remember) and as my “starting magic items” I requested (and was granted) a +2 battle axe and a great helm that worked like a ring of protection +1 (I think I also got a couple healing potions that were never used). With an 18/50-something strength and some sort of “axe bonus” from my kit (I really don’t remember the exact 2nd edition mumbo-jumbo), my fighter was a veritable whirlwind of destruction, carving through high level clerics and random driders/Drow-types in single combat, while the ranger plinked away with less-than-effective arrows and the thief hung back looking for something to steal (there were only three players and no NPCs).

It was actually one of the more fun adventure sessions I can remember playing.

And this despite using an “optimal weapon” or any inherent advantage in the weapon type (like D20’s greater threat range/greater crit damage deal). I honestly can’t recall if 2nd edition AD&D uses “weapon type vs. armor” but the DM on this occasion certainly did NOT…and there’s something that’s just viscerally satisfying about hacking someone down with a tool normally used for felling trees. Especially when folks are laughing at your choice of weapon.

; )

"Talk To The Axe..." (Redux)

Gone is my favorite fantasy artist of all time. Originally, the title of this post was going to be something along the lines of "Aw, Shit..." but you know what? F that noise.

Once again, I am going to set aside sadness and instead celebrate a life that touched the hearts and minds of many folks...inspiring some to great art and others to imaginative journeys through the pages of literature. Frank Frazetta was a great man, and certainly one who left an indelible mark on the fantasy genre. His courage and creativity will NOT be missed as his artwork...some of the most memorable commercial art of the 20th century...will surely outlive most of us viewing it today.

Thanks, Frank. I know I was both inspired and thrilled by your works.

[the above piece of art, posted withOUT permission, is perhaps my single favorite fantasy work of all time. No doubt about it, God blessed that man's pen]

Magic Item: Wayedge

Everybody is doing it. I'm just going with the flow this morning.

Gunnar Red-Beard, stared over the bow of his longship, eyeing the coastline while listening contentedly to the straining grunts of his pillagers, pulling at the oars. The raiders had been sailing for several weeks, but morale was still high...the vikings knew their captain had never failed to lead them to ports ripe with plunder.  Still, this southern continent was new, even for them.  

Stroking the haft of his axe, Gunnar dispelled doubt from his mind. Wayedge had yet to point false, and the sea chieftain had come to trust the weapon as his men trusted him. 

The wind picked up and Gunnar signaled the oars stowed as a gust filled the sail. Skimming over the blue sea the longship rounded a jutting spur of rock and a murmur of assent rippled through the crew of the fat and happy seacoast town that came into view. Obviously, the townsfolk had felt their bay sufficiently hidden that little defense was necessary. Gunnar smiled to himself as he gripped his axe....

Wayedge is an axe +2 of razor sharpness; on a high enough attack roll, it will sever a limb (determined at random by the DM) from its opponent. The unmodified roll must be an 18-20 for this to occur against a normal humanoid opponent or 19-20 against a monstrous or larger-than-man-sized opponent. If the target is entirely composed of solid stone or metal (for example, a golem), then a natural unmodified roll of 20 is needed regardless of size. Creatures without limbs (such as purple worms) are unaffected by this ability.

Wayedge is Chaotic in alignment, though it is unintelligent. It exists to lead its wielder to new places where it might be used for bloody slaughter. The owner of Wayedge will never be lost, on land or at sea, instinctively knowing the right way to go. A destination must be held in mind, though it need not be one the character has ever before visited. Wayedge can only grant knowledge of the direction of the destination...obstacles, traps, and secret doors are not revealed.

Owners of Wayedge are subject to insatiable wanderlust and an inability to settle down; a character will never stay in any one location (town/city, castle/dungeon) greater than 1-4 weeks before moving on. There is no saving throw against this compulsion. Once a character has left a location, he or she will not return to it for at least a year.

Forty Whacks With An Axe

It would be fairly easy for me to fill pages and pages of this blog with posts about Frank Frazetta’s Death Dealer character and axes in general…but then I should’ve called this the Lizzie Borden blog or some such. Maybe next week’s “theme” will be “Axe Week;” ‘course folks might mistake my blog for a History Channel ad….

Sorry for the tangents; perhaps I can relate all this to the topic at hand (i.e. RPGs).

James R. Silk (no idea if this is a pen name or not) penned a series of novels based on the Death Dealer character, first created by Frazetta in 1973 (the year I was born…hmmm…). Although Frazetta has created six Death Dealer paintings, I am only aware of four novels by Mr. Silk (each is based on one of the six paintings). I’ve read three of the books even though I’m not a great fan of Silk’s writing (he has an extreme tendency to over-using the simile and metaphor as tools of prose…it gets annoying). They are S&S Nouveau, 3rd generation Swords and Sorcery pastiche. Which is not terrible (hey, I bought the books!), just not terribly original.

What is original is Frazetta’s primal character. Called Gath of Baal in these novels, the “prisoner of the horned helmet” is an Ice Age barbarian of the forest, who gets his head stuck in an unholy artifact (said helmet) and is transformed into the embodiment of the god of Death. He gets a lot of titles (the Dark One, the Forest Lord, the Death Dealer, etc.) and he kills a lot of people (mainly with an axe) when his soul is not being saved by his fair lady (Ahh…how cute). The character is very different from the recent comic book series (which needs a post of its own), as the Death Dealer is a possessed mortal, rather than an animated corpse.

I’ve modeled stats for ol’ Gath in D20 in the past (that was fun), and even tried to craft his horned helmet under the BECMI artifact rules (a bit frustrating). I may or may not post these sometime in the future. However, the FIRST time I used the Death Dealer as D&D inspiration was the first and only time I played 2nd Edition AD&D.

This would have been around 1997…just before I met my wife but probably 7 or 8 years after my last high school D&D game. My co-worker, James, offered to run a game for me, I lassoed a couple other buddies, and we ran in his (I think) Forgotten Realms pocket campaign.

My then-roommate, Mike, played his usual (I found out later) ranger-archer character, “Keldern.” Kris ran his standard Thief (are they called “rogues” in AD&D2? I don’t remember); I belief he was named “Zandramas” but Zand may have been a later, different thief. I was thinking of playing a fighter (since AD&D2 bards suck), but it was strongly suggested that I play some sort of clerical-type. So I came up with my own version of the Death Dealer.

"Baalzac" (I believe that was his name, because we later referred to him as “Ball Sack”) was ostensibly a “cleric,” but a peculiar type of cleric. As I explained to my fellow players, Baalzac was a priest of the mad God of Carnage in War, Tarjan (yes, stole the “mad god” from Bard’s Tale). Tarjan’s priests were required to fight in combat with the god’s chosen weapon (three guesses, folks) and was granted higher hit dice and fighting ability than a normal cleric. However, as a trade-off to this, Tarjan granted no spells, nor did his priests have the ability to “turn undead.”

In other words: a fighter. But Baalzac specifically referred to himself as a cleric/priest, and had both code and doctrine that he was required to uphold. James was nice enough to let me run with this idea. "Keldern" did not appreciate the joke.

I was also fairly insistent that I wanted a “magic horned helmet.” I’m not sure what exactly I was thinking at the time (both Kris and I had decided to get a serious “buzz on” before sitting down to the table), and I’m sure James didn’t either (he was a military history buff, nor a Frazetta fan), but he gave me a "+2 helmet” that acted pretty much like a ring of protection…that is, it contributed +2 to my character’s AC and provided no other bonuses. God bless him, it was perfect.

The adventure was pretty random…go somewhere, do something, all that is forgotten now…but my character was a hoot to play. The highlight was definitely an encounter with an NPC noble-fighter and his retinue, during which “Ball Sack” took offense to the snubbing of his deity by the lord's high priest. I got to make a big speech and challenged the priest to a holmgang, “acting as proxies for our deities.” Of course, in a straight up melee my “cleric” slaughtered the high priest and Tarjan was “vindicated” as the mightier demigod.

Talk about an anti-paladin…

As a one-off game, AD&D2 wasn’t bad…of course, there are more rules than what are really needed for a one-off game (the “kits” James made us choose seemed fairly redundant). But as a “get-drunk-and-f-around-game” it was fun. “Keldern” the ranger was a total wanker, though. Really wish I’d had a chance to introduce him to the business end of my hatchet….
: )