Two-handed weapon thought

[cadriel]

I've been thinking a lot about base d6 damage as a rule and generally I like it - a weapon usually does a comparable amount of actual punishment in the hand of a skilled wielder regardless of size. Variable damage helps enforce "sword supremacy" in general.

But it takes the sense out of two-handed weapons in general. Given how they were used in history, I actually don't think two-handed weapons should have extreme amounts of damage; a two-handed sword was used as a very specific instrument in battlefield control, not as a sort of over-the-top weapon that just laid people open.

What I see, though, is that 2-handed weapons should have better ability to hit. It only makes sense: for a fighting-man, you're sacrificing a shield in return for something that, let's say, will have the same effect on opponents: a +1 to hit, maybe even a +2. This seems pretty well in line with what Chainmail did, giving significantly better to-hit chances with 2 handed weapons. And it maps well if you think of being able to use the weapon's size to get around the advantage of using a shield.

Has anybody done this? What is a good break-even point for giving a 2-handed advantage?

[Deleted]

IMO the overall low adjustments in OD&D makes +1 a reasonable starting place.

If you try a higher adjustment and every Fighting-Man in your campaign starts using two-handers than you can be reasonably certain you need to dial it back a notch.

[warrioroffrobozz]

I give a +1 to damage with 2 handers, and on the flip side 1 handed weapons can be dual wielded with a +1 to hit.

[Zenopus]

Sounds reasonable to me, cadriel, and combining your thought with warrior's could give a simple, easy-to-remember rule:

One two-handed weapon, or two single-handed weapons, gives a +1 to hit.

One consideration, if using Greyhawk or Holmes, is that Thieves cannot use shields but can use all weapons of the fighting man - so if you are using a rule such as this every Thief will want to use a 2-handed weapon or two single-handed weapons. It could be limited to Fighting Men only, or perhaps Thieves could use the boost since they have such poor armor and HD (if using variable HD).

[cadriel]

Mar 25, 2012 12:24:12 GMT -6 warrioroffrobozz said:

I give a +1 to damage with 2 handers, and on the flip side 1 handed weapons can be dual wielded with a +1 to hit.

Not to be a hard-ass about it, but why? Game conventions aside, two-handed weapons historically tended to be rather specialized in their use and were not raw damage machines. A well-placed dagger and a well-placed two-handed sword would hit in roughly the same way: a few inches of steel going into the target. The difference seems to me to lie more in how well the two-hander bypasses the target's defenses. I have to think somewhat about what dual-wielding styles actually do, but I feel that realistically handled two-handers and polearms should not do more damage, but instead hit more often.

[cooper]

On a roll of 20:

Axes: cause bleeding dmg of 2 point per round for as many rounds as the initial damage roll
Maces: stun for 1 round
swords: double dmg


Concerning 2 handed swords, they have a built--but somewhat hidden, benefit of getting first strike on a charge. I would personally add that they can be set to receive a charge (like the other two handed weapons--spears and pole-arms) and are thus eligable for double damage.

I think too many people forget the charging rules and therefore forget about the benefits 2-handed weapons have over 1 handed; automatically winning initiative is much cooler than a static +1 bonus.

[Mushgnome]

Chainmail has it just about right, IMHO:
The 2-hand weapon strikes 1st on the 1st round; the 1-hand weapon strikes 1st on the 2nd and subsequent rounds. Both do the same damage (i.e. you're dead).

[thorswulf]

I like the idea of stunning with blunt weapons! However being rapped in the helm in the SCA a few times myself, It could probably apply to any weapon... over the length of a dagger! Maybe the upshot of this could be a variable critical hit. For example:

Blunt or crushing weapons on creatures over 1+1 hit die Save vs. (lowest SR) or be stunned and out of combat for 1d6 rounds. Those creatures under 1+1 HD are DEAD from trauma

Piercing weapons like spears or arrows on creatures over 1+1 hit dice Save vs Death or be incapacitated for 1d6 turns and lose 1 hp per round until healed. Those under 1+1 HD are DEAD from impalement through the vitals, eyeball into brain or what have you.

Slashing weapons on creatures over 1+1 hit dice save versus Petrification/Polymorph or be cut severely and losing 2 hp per round. Those creatures under 1+1 HD are killed by having their head chopped off, cut in twain, or massive blood loss due to having limbs severed or gut slahed open. Any way you slice it (sorry) they're a deader!

By the way, those over 1+1 Hit dice who make their saves just get double damage. Criticals should be nasty....

Just some random musings in the bloody manner of S&S or Norse sagas!

[warrioroffrobozz]

Not to be a hard-ass about it, but why? Game conventions aside, two-handed weapons historically tended to be rather specialized in their use and were not raw damage machines. A well-placed dagger and a well-placed two-handed sword would hit in roughly the same way: a few inches of steel going into the target. The difference seems to me to lie more in how well the two-hander bypasses the target's defenses. I have to think somewhat about what dual-wielding styles actually do, but I feel that realistically handled two-handers and polearms should not do more damage, but instead hit more often.

Mostly because I'm trying to tell a good story, not simulate a real battle. When I think envision someone being hit with a claymore I see their armour crunching like paper, and the sword ripping through their bones, as opposed to what would realistically happen. It's the same with dual wielding, where the wielder is dancing and weaving around the target, trying to get a blow in wherever possible. Conan would be a lot less entertaining if anything he did was even remotely realistic.
Also, "realistically" two handed weapons would barely be useful underground at all, there's simply not enough room.

[talysman]

I don't increase damage, but lately I've added the "roll two dice and keep the highest" rule for two-handed weapon damage. I can see using the +1 attack bonus, but I've debated treating plate as chain when attacked by two-handed weapons.

I also use the weapon length rule mentioned above, plus two-handed weapons have an improved chance of breaking one-hand weapons used to parry.

[rms]

I've generally done the roll two dice, keep the highest, too. It keeps all the damage neatly in the same range, but does allow a nice little advantage for a 2-handed weapon to offset the worse armor.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with weapon length differences unless I'm going to the full Man vs. Man combat system, in which case the advantages of 2-handed weapons are built in.

[Mike]

Nice thread...

I'm using a straight d6 for "medium" weapons, 2 dice and keep the lowest for "light" and 2 dice keep the highest for "heavy".

I do like +1 to hit for fighting with two weapons...

[darkling]

I suppose I see the reasoning behind allowing a two handed sword a bonus to hit, but would you say the same for a spear?

A greatsword might well hack through a large arc and therefore have a larger target area, but a spear wielded in two hands or a stiletto will each have the same target size of one point. The difference is the force that can be put behind such a blow, which I think is why people want to five a bonus to damage with two handed weapons.

Personally I use a light/medium/heavy system with a one/two/or dual wielding style at player choice.

[Thorulfr]

Just to calibrate your perceptions
(might be a bit graphic for confirmed vegetarians):
tv.coldsteel.com/Box/Default.aspx?VidID=88WGSS

Cold Steel makes a zweihander, and they have some entertaining cutting demonstrations:
2:37 - cutting through 9 rolled tatami mats*
4:00 - cutting through two pig carcasses, then decapitating both with one swing
5:22 - cutting lengthwise through a pig carcass, crotch to neck
7:01 - smashing through a cinder block
7:50 - thrusting, then throwing through a metal car hood
8:25 - thrusting, then throwing through a target covered with chainmail

By way of comparison, here is their demonstration video of their "Norman Sword" (ironically, that is a typically Anglo-Saxon pommel style...oops):
tv.coldsteel.com/Box/Default.aspx?VidID=88NOR


*(rolled, wet tatami mats are a standard tool used in katana training - one rolled mat is supposed to give approximately the same resistance to cutting as a human arm.)