Community

Oct 11, 2012 -- 11:31AM, FluxPoint wrote:

I think you could make a strong argument that two hands isn't really helping you as much as you'd like in a combat situation. I'm not saying you can't make the other argument, because it is easy to make.

A human wielding a longsword in one hand can put 'less' behind the swing than he can with two hands. We all agree with that. However, it is not as if these combats are simulating someone taking a longsword and making baseball bat haymaker swings with them. So this is the argument that I could use to do away with the two handed argument. Just because an Ogre can wield it in one hand or two, the weapon is simply so small that the amount of useful force behind the item is small. This is perhaps the same reason STR shouldn't add to finesse weapons.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but hopefully my argument makes some sense.
Maybe instead of 1/2 str as an add, perhaps just a flat +1 (or die size increaes as suggested earlier). That has no scaling and very predictable results/issues. 

Does this mean a dwarf could pick up a weapon and wield it in two hand for two die size increases. Very interesting result - eh?

 

I don't think that, even if the weapon is fairly small, wielding with two hands is going to be much of a disadvantage. If you hold a knife with a long-enough handle in two hands, I am sure you can stab things with much greater power than you could with one hand. Although you would have a smaller range of motion than using it with  a single hand.

But, if we are talking about a larger, heavier weapon-- then holding it with two hands is certain to allow you to strike with greater power and would allow for greater stability for blocking or parrying blows.

In fact, all considered, I might be willing to consider wielding a medium weapon with two hands a legitimate interpretation of the old Power Attack mechanic. It might be a bit harder to hit, but you are going to do more damage. 

Oct 11, 2012 -- 12:06PM, SteeleButterfly wrote:

I could make a case for dropping accuracy (because of the more limited range of motion) and bumping the damage die or adding a bonus to the damage. Say, -2 / +2.

Perhaps this makes sense. Maybe water it down to -1/+1. I just don't want the bonus to be large to limit the power of the glass cannon.

So would a weapon that MUST be wielded two handed get this bonus?
So if you want to use a greatsword, you must take the -1/+1?
 

Oct 11, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Valdark wrote:

You do not have more control if the haft of the weapon does not accommodate the second hand.

well, no one is going to grab a dagger with 2 hands...

Oct 11, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Valdark wrote:

In the case of the long sword the second hand offers no benifit and in fact hinders your range of motion.

I guess you never grasped a longsword then?

Oct 11, 2012 -- 12:10PM, FluxPoint wrote:

Oct 11, 2012 -- 12:06PM, SteeleButterfly wrote:

I could make a case for dropping accuracy (because of the more limited range of motion) and bumping the damage die or adding a bonus to the damage. Say, -2 / +2.

Perhaps this makes sense. Maybe water it down to -1/+1. I just don't want the bonus to be large to limit the power of the glass cannon.

So would a weapon that MUST be wielded two handed get this bonus?
So if you want to use a greatsword, you must take the -1/+1?

No, I would limit this to weapons that a) are normally wielded 1-handed and have a hilt or grip that allows effective 2-handed use, or b) are designed to be used either 1- or 2-handed from the beginning.

Oct 11, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Mand12 wrote:

Oct 11, 2012 -- 1:34PM, Trance-Zg wrote:

Oct 11, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Valdark wrote:

In the case of the long sword the second hand offers no benifit and in fact hinders your range of motion.

I guess you never grasped a longsword then?

Or a baseball bat, for that matter.

baseball bats are designed for two handed use.