One-handed vs. Two-handed

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

This just came up in tonight's session:

Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.

When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
because he can use it two-handed.

That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
to use a shield.

That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?

Fortunately, the equipment book we use (Goods and Gear, by Kenzer and
Company; we play Kalamar), specifically mentions when weapons can be
used two-handed, so I ruled (with my players' agreement) that all
martial weapons are one-handed unless mentioned otherwise.

There'll be a few snarls on the way; e.g. I don't know (no PHB handy)
if the rules in the PHB specifically state what can be used two-handed
and what not. I know of the bastard sword, but that's about it.

Thoughts anyone? Is my ruling overly harsh, or is it a good idea, and
if yes to the latter, how do I handle the standard weapons? Ideas,
suggestions?

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
79 answers Last reply
More about handed handed
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege wrote:
    > This just came up in tonight's session:
    >
    > Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    > rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    > weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    > can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >
    > When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    > 'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    > a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    > because he can use it two-handed.
    >
    > That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    > DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    > can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    > to use a shield.
    >
    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?

    You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    Typical Western swords don't have that.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
    news:87sm1h3w9q.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan:

    > This just came up in tonight's session:
    >
    > Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    > rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    > weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    > can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >
    > When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    > 'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    > a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    > because he can use it two-handed.
    >
    > That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    > DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    > can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    > to use a shield.

    It's true. The division goes:
    Two handed weapon: Need two hands.
    One handed weapon: Need one hand, two hands optional.
    Light weapon: One hand only.

    All nice and consistent.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Chipacabra wrote:
    > It's true. The division goes:
    > Two handed weapon: Need two hands.
    > One handed weapon: Need one hand, two hands optional.
    > Light weapon: One hand only.
    >
    > All nice and consistent.

    This is an awful, awful, awful poem.

    But at least it's not goth.

    Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87sm1h3w9q.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > This just came up in tonight's session:
    >
    > Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    > rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    > weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    > can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >
    > When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    > 'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    > a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    > because he can use it two-handed.
    >
    > That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    > DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    > can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    > to use a shield.
    >
    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?
    >
    > Fortunately, the equipment book we use (Goods and Gear, by Kenzer and
    > Company; we play Kalamar), specifically mentions when weapons can be
    > used two-handed, so I ruled (with my players' agreement) that all
    > martial weapons are one-handed unless mentioned otherwise.
    >
    > There'll be a few snarls on the way; e.g. I don't know (no PHB handy)
    > if the rules in the PHB specifically state what can be used two-handed
    > and what not. I know of the bastard sword, but that's about it.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? Is my ruling overly harsh, or is it a good idea, and
    > if yes to the latter, how do I handle the standard weapons? Ideas,
    > suggestions?
    >
    > Mart
    >
    > --
    > "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    > --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
    The advice that my Dwarven Earth Druid is giving me is .....
    Tell the silly GIT to put down the toothpick and pick up a
    REAL weapon! Nothing says hurtin like a well crafted AXE!
    And if you are up to dishing out a big hurt, then the bigger the
    hammer, the better the bash! If I weren't spending all my time
    swinging this pick, I would spend the time to work with one of
    those 2 weapons. Even a too-tall, muscle-bound fool like a
    barbarian can figure out one of those! And if he takes the hammer
    he can learn to throw it! Let's see him do THAT with a Katana....
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronbourque@aol.com> wrote in
    news:1114309998.723730.256510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > Chipacabra wrote:
    >> It's true. The division goes:
    >> Two handed weapon: Need two hands.
    >> One handed weapon: Need one hand, two hands optional.
    >> Light weapon: One hand only.
    >>
    >> All nice and consistent.
    >
    > This is an awful, awful, awful poem.
    >
    > But at least it's not goth.

    Philistine.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87sm1h3w9q.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    > DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    > can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    > to use a shield.

    RTFM. It's not as if it isn't in there.

    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?

    Many weapons with blades the length of D&D longswords *do* have handles
    long enough to be used two handed; not all hand-and-a-half designs have to
    be of a size that warrants "d10" damage scale. Further, there are ways to
    crawl one hand up the grip by putting one or two fingers above the crossbar
    (which is still safe - in fact, *proper* - with some hilt designs); I can
    certainly take my rapier in two hands, though I can't do all the same
    movements I would with a katana due to the hilt design.
    Further, even _if_ you want to postulate that your swords have grips
    that are only 4" long and finger-exposing cross hilts, there is the matter
    of any shaft weapon in the game - maces, spears, morning stars, hammers
    .... all of these are fairly ludicrous to forbid to two handed usage.
    Consequently, a weapon whose handle is so uniquely confining as to make it
    inappropriate for two handed use is really a rather rare implement as far as
    the general spectrum of "one handed weapons" go in D&D.
    If there are to be *justified* limitations in that regard they will need
    to focus specifically on a given weapon's hilt design and not "one handed"
    status in general; your ruling on this matter was both incorrect (given the
    canonical rules) and intellectually bankrupt.

    There have been variant weapons rules floating about since 3.0 was born
    that suggested basket-hilted swords (costing a bit extra) would provide a
    bonus to parrying or defensive maneuvers, and *these* swords would likely be
    hard to use in a two handed fashion. Use a mechanism of that sort to make
    such decisions - not their default usage.

    > There'll be a few snarls on the way; e.g. I don't know (no PHB handy)

    The SRD for d20 is on line. USE IT.

    -Michael
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:31:45 +0200, Mart van de Wege
    <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> scribed into the ether:

    >This just came up in tonight's session:
    >
    >Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    >rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    >weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    >can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >
    >When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    >'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    >a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    >because he can use it two-handed.
    >
    >That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    >DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    >can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    >to use a shield.
    >
    >That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    >that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    >so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?

    The rules are on their side. If you want to rule that a specific weapon
    cannot be used like that, then that's of course your perogative.

    3.0 PHB, Page 97:
    If the weapon's size category is the esame as yours (such as a human using
    a rapier), then the weapon is one-handed for you. If you use a one-handed
    melee weapon two-handed, you can apply one and a half times your Strength
    bonus to damage.

    http://therionarms.com/reenact/com155.html has a 10 inch grip, which seems
    pretty ample to get both hands on it. However, that one is maybe longer
    than the typical D&D longsword (and is described on the site as being a
    bastard sword).
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Mart van de Wege just
    said...
    > This just came up in tonight's session:
    >
    > Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    > rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    > weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    > can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >
    > When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    > 'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    > a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    > because he can use it two-handed.
    >
    > That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    > DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    > can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    > to use a shield.

    Step 1: Read the rules for weapon size near the beginning of chapter 7
    of the PH.

    Step 2: Shoot yourself in the head.


    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?
    >
    > Fortunately, the equipment book we use (Goods and Gear, by Kenzer and
    > Company; we play Kalamar), specifically mentions when weapons can be
    > used two-handed, so I ruled (with my players' agreement) that all
    > martial weapons are one-handed unless mentioned otherwise.
    >
    > There'll be a few snarls on the way; e.g. I don't know (no PHB handy)
    > if the rules in the PHB specifically state what can be used two-handed
    > and what not. I know of the bastard sword, but that's about it.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? Is my ruling overly harsh, or is it a good idea, and
    > if yes to the latter, how do I handle the standard weapons? Ideas,
    > suggestions?
    >
    > Mart
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    > You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    > proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    > some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    > Typical Western swords don't have that.

    Since when?
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Alien mind control rays made Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> write:
    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? Is my ruling overly harsh, or is it a good idea, and
    > if yes to the latter, how do I handle the standard weapons? Ideas,
    > suggestions?

    you're a scruffy looking nerf-master.

    --
    \^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
    \ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    // \ X-Windows: It could be worse... but it'll take time.
    // \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87sm1h3w9q.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > This just came up in tonight's session:
    >
    > Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    > rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    > weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    > can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >
    > When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    > 'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    > a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    > because he can use it two-handed.
    >
    > That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    > DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    > can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    > to use a shield.
    >
    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?
    >
    > Fortunately, the equipment book we use (Goods and Gear, by Kenzer and
    > Company; we play Kalamar), specifically mentions when weapons can be
    > used two-handed, so I ruled (with my players' agreement) that all
    > martial weapons are one-handed unless mentioned otherwise.
    >
    > There'll be a few snarls on the way; e.g. I don't know (no PHB handy)
    > if the rules in the PHB specifically state what can be used two-handed
    > and what not. I know of the bastard sword, but that's about it.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? Is my ruling overly harsh, or is it a good idea, and
    > if yes to the latter, how do I handle the standard weapons? Ideas,
    > suggestions?
    >


    Why do you think that longswords have tiny hilts?
    Why shouldn't you allow it?

    If you introduce weapons that are clearly better than standard weapons
    (the Eldril has the same stats as a Falchion, but is one handed) you
    should expect the PCs to use them.

    Anyway, the barbarian could just use a Falchion two-handed instead.

    BTW, a bastard sword is better anyway, so there's no balance issue.

    Geoff.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege wrote:
    > I still don't like the abstraction one bit. I used a longsword as an
    > example, because from what I know, giving it a 1.5 damage modifier
    > based on two-handed use is silly given the hilt design. Any longsword
    > with a hilt long enough to be effectively used two-handed would be
    > more of a bastard sword IMO. Neither do my players like the
    > abstraction, by the way, which is why everyone settled on an
    > interpretation that was not RAW, but acceptable to all.

    For this discussion to have meaning, you first need to understand that
    -- in the real world -- there is no hard-and-fast definition of terms
    like "short sword", "long sword", "bastard sword", etc. The terms were
    fairly fluid and geographically inconsistent over the course of
    history, and in the modern age scholars have differing opinions over
    (a) what each term means in any given primary text; (b) whether or not
    the terms should be standardized for modern usage; and (c) if they are
    to be standardized, how they'll be standardized. To take one example,
    many sources I've seen use the terms "long sword" and "bastard sword"
    interchangeably.

    So, when it comes to D&D, these terms are -- for all intents and
    purposes -- *arbitrarily* assigned to various types of swords. (Because
    D&D, after all, is a rule system. And for a rule system you need the
    type of simply consistency which the real world, in all its pesky
    complexity, frequently dispenses with.)

    So, when it comes to D&D, the term "longsword" has been arbitrarily
    assigned to "a sword light enough that you can wield it effectively in
    one hand; but with a hilt designed so that you can use it in two hands
    if you want to".

    Now, IYO, the term longsword should ACTUALLY be applied only to "a
    sword that can only be used in one-hand, but larger than a shortsword".
    That's fine. And if you want to put some houserules in place which
    re-label D&D's classifications, I don't see the problem. (Although I
    rather suspect it'll end up causing you endless headaches.)

    --
    Justin Bacon
    triad3204@aol.com
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> writes:

    > Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Mart van de Wege just
    > said...
    >> This just came up in tonight's session:
    >>
    >> Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    >> rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    >> weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    >> can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >>
    >> When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    >> 'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    >> a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    >> because he can use it two-handed.
    >>
    >> That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    >> DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    >> can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    >> to use a shield.
    >
    > Step 1: Read the rules for weapon size near the beginning of chapter 7
    > of the PH.
    >
    > Step 2: Shoot yourself in the head.

    I did look up the rules in the meantime. And as it happens, I agree
    with my player that this is the RAW, as his rules knowledge is
    impeccable.

    I still don't like the abstraction one bit. I used a longsword as an
    example, because from what I know, giving it a 1.5 damage modifier
    based on two-handed use is silly given the hilt design. Any longsword
    with a hilt long enough to be effectively used two-handed would be
    more of a bastard sword IMO. Neither do my players like the
    abstraction, by the way, which is why everyone settled on an
    interpretation that was not RAW, but acceptable to all.

    But before we set this into a houserule, or overturn it, I'd like some
    useful thoughts. Even Michael was more useful than you in this
    instance.

    Mart


    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87ll784ifg.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > I still don't like the abstraction one bit. I used a longsword as an
    > example, because from what I know, giving it a 1.5 damage modifier
    > based on two-handed use is silly given the hilt design. Any longsword
    > with a hilt long enough to be effectively used two-handed would be
    > more of a bastard sword IMO.

    Your opinion is therefore worthless, and should not be used as a guide
    to judge good gaming rules. It's the *blade* that makes a bastard sword hit
    for d10, not the handle.

    -Michael
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> writes:

    > "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    > news:87sm1h3w9q.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    >> That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    >> DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    >> can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    >> to use a shield.
    >
    > RTFM. It's not as if it isn't in there.
    >
    Found it. Still don't like it. And my players went scratching their
    heads as well ("that *really* works on all weapons, even short-hilted
    ones?")

    >> That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    >> that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    >> so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?
    >
    > Many weapons with blades the length of D&D longswords *do* have handles
    > long enough to be used two handed; not all hand-and-a-half designs have to
    > be of a size that warrants "d10" damage scale. Further, there are ways to
    > crawl one hand up the grip by putting one or two fingers above the crossbar
    > (which is still safe - in fact, *proper* - with some hilt designs); I can
    > certainly take my rapier in two hands, though I can't do all the same
    > movements I would with a katana due to the hilt design.

    Yes, with some contortion, that can be done. How effective is it in
    combat though? And that bit about 'some hilt designs' is exactly what
    I'm falling over. Lacking any description, I assumed that the hilt
    design would be for one-handed use. You have a different
    interpretation.

    Actually an interpretation we could live with in my group. It does
    make sense. I'll throw it up next Saturday.

    Perhaps ruling that two-handed use is only allowed if the weapon
    description states so is better to apply only on weapons in our
    equipment book, as there the difference is mentioned explicitly.

    I'll just let the RAW stand for the standard PHB weapons
    then. Especially considering this:

    > Further, even _if_ you want to postulate that your swords have grips
    > that are only 4" long and finger-exposing cross hilts, there is the matter
    > of any shaft weapon in the game - maces, spears, morning stars, hammers
    > ... all of these are fairly ludicrous to forbid to two handed usage.
    > Consequently, a weapon whose handle is so uniquely confining as to make it
    > inappropriate for two handed use is really a rather rare implement as far as
    > the general spectrum of "one handed weapons" go in D&D.
    > If there are to be *justified* limitations in that regard they will need
    > to focus specifically on a given weapon's hilt design and not "one handed"
    > status in general; your ruling on this matter was both incorrect (given the
    > canonical rules) and intellectually bankrupt.
    >
    My ruling could be considered correct for the weapons in Goods and
    Gear, as the weapons chapter in that book specifically goes into the
    differences in hilt design, and the weapon descriptions are fairly
    explicit too.

    > There have been variant weapons rules floating about since 3.0 was born
    > that suggested basket-hilted swords (costing a bit extra) would provide a
    > bonus to parrying or defensive maneuvers, and *these* swords would likely be
    > hard to use in a two handed fashion. Use a mechanism of that sort to make
    > such decisions - not their default usage.

    Oh, I wasn't intending to make a final ruling in one go. This was only
    the second session in a completely new setting for all of us. There
    will be inconsistencies, rules interpretations and discussions
    galore.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87hdhw4hy6.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> writes:
    > > (which is still safe - in fact, *proper* - with some hilt designs); I
    can
    > > certainly take my rapier in two hands, though I can't do all the same
    > > movements I would with a katana due to the hilt design.
    >
    > Yes, with some contortion, that can be done. How effective is it in
    > combat though?

    I'd be better with a rapier that way than normally due to my deeper
    experience with the katana.

    > And that bit about 'some hilt designs' is exactly what
    > I'm falling over. Lacking any description, I assumed that the hilt
    > design would be for one-handed use. You have a different
    > interpretation.

    No. The GAME has a different interpretation - by default *all* one
    handed weapons have hilts and handles large enough to take into two hands.
    Else they would not be in a category of weapon that is specifically laid out
    to be "useable in two hands if you want".


    -Michael
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87hdhw4hy6.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> writes:
    >
    >> "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    >> news:87sm1h3w9q.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    >>> That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our
    >>> regular
    >>> DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial
    >>> weapons
    >>> can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being
    >>> unable
    >>> to use a shield.
    >>
    >> RTFM. It's not as if it isn't in there.
    >>
    > Found it. Still don't like it. And my players went scratching their
    > heads as well ("that *really* works on all weapons, even
    > short-hilted
    > ones?")

    Another thing to actually consider is how the short-hilted weapons
    might be handled two handed. Perhaps the hands are almost overlapped.
    While it might not be a superior method for gripping a weapon, it
    might explain the two handed use. Effective methods of handling
    could be different in the "settings" when compared to real world
    so a little bit of slack might be permissiable. Perhaps there is a
    method
    taught that allows near stacking of both hands and still allows the
    weapon
    to be used properly.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Geoff Watson" <geoffwatson@pacific.net.au> writes:

    > "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    >
    >
    > Why do you think that longswords have tiny hilts?

    I don't consider a length of just over one hands' breadth tiny. But
    still not useful for two-handed fighting.


    > If you introduce weapons that are clearly better than standard weapons
    > (the Eldril has the same stats as a Falchion, but is one handed) you
    > should expect the PCs to use them.

    Yes. And all of them use them. The Barbarian was just hesitating
    whether or not to switch. The weapon went into the general loot, so if
    I revise my decision, he can still take it back up.
    >
    > Anyway, the barbarian could just use a Falchion two-handed instead.
    >
    > BTW, a bastard sword is better anyway, so there's no balance issue.
    >
    That's a bit hard to do if you're in the middle of a thick forest, not
    speaking the local language very well, and with the real risk that
    anyone who sees you will turn you in to the local slavers (which will
    include Clerics of the god of slavery).

    Sorry, only source of weapons for the next two sessions at least is
    whoever they get to kill.

    Mart


    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87d5sk4hrk.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > "Geoff Watson" <geoffwatson@pacific.net.au> writes:
    > > Why do you think that longswords have tiny hilts?
    >
    > I don't consider a length of just over one hands' breadth tiny. But
    > still not useful for two-handed fighting.

    Just how much grip on the pommel do you think is necessary for
    two-handed fighting?

    -Michael
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Willie" <wroop@net-link.net> writes:


    > The advice that my Dwarven Earth Druid is giving me is .....
    > Tell the silly GIT to put down the toothpick and pick up a
    > REAL weapon! Nothing says hurtin like a well crafted AXE!

    Nice, and true, and totally what my Barbarian player wants to do In
    Character.

    Too bad the nearest weaponsmith is going to take a good look at our
    party and call in the slavers. They're escaped slaves, currently
    trekking through the wilderness to escape.

    Once they get across the mountains, there will be settlements that are
    safe to visit. *Then* he can upgrade his weapon choice.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    >
    >>You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    >>proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    >>some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    >>Typical Western swords don't have that.
    >
    >
    > Since when?

    Since forever. Some do -- like the Bastard -- but I have three swords
    here in my house, typical Western designs, and none of them can
    accomodate two hands on the handle.

    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    >Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >>Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    >>>You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    >>>proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    >>>some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    >>>Typical Western swords don't have that.
    >> Since when?
    > Since forever. Some do -- like the Bastard -- but I have three swords
    > here in my house, typical Western designs, and none of them can
    > accomodate two hands on the handle.

    I trust the expert (Guy Windsor):

    http://www.swordschool.com/en/index.html

    The most typical early Western sword, the longsword (aka hand and a half
    sword, bastard sword) has the long handle. But anything after that does not.

    I understood that the longsword techniques - the ones that they teach,
    at least - primarily use both hands.

    --
    Niilo Paasivirta E-mail: np@iki.fi URL: http://www.iki.fi/%7Enp/
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Niilo Paasivirta wrote:
    > Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    >>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    >>>>proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    >>>>some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    >>>>Typical Western swords don't have that.
    >>>
    >>>Since when?
    >>
    >> Since forever. Some do -- like the Bastard -- but I have three swords
    >>here in my house, typical Western designs, and none of them can
    >>accomodate two hands on the handle.
    >
    >
    > I trust the expert (Guy Windsor):
    >
    > http://www.swordschool.com/en/index.html
    >
    > The most typical early Western sword, the longsword (aka hand and a half
    > sword, bastard sword) has the long handle. But anything after that does not.
    >
    > I understood that the longsword techniques - the ones that they teach,
    > at least - primarily use both hands.


    Okay, here's where D&D distinctions vs. real-life ambiguities come into
    play.

    It seems from this description that the real-life longswords and bastard
    swords were synonymous. However in D&D there's a difference between the
    two weapon types. So does this weapon translate into a D&D longsword or
    a D&D bastard sword?

    -Tialan
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
    > I'd like some useful thoughts.

    If the handle is something like this:
    http://therionarms.com/antiques/therionarms_c503.html
    then even is the sword is clearly a one-handed sword (because
    of its length and weight), there shoulf be no problen using
    it two-handed.

    On the other hand, it the handle is for example something like this:
    http://therionarms.com/reenact/com303.html
    then a two-handed grip might be too cumbersome in order to be
    of any use in a fight.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sampo Smolander wrote:
    >
    > If the handle is something like this:
    > http://therionarms.com/antiques/therionarms_c503.html
    > then even is the sword is clearly a one-handed sword (because
    > of its length and weight), there shoulf be no problen using
    > it two-handed.

    If nothing else, is it not possible to conceive of a grip utilising both hands
    and arms which nevertheless has only one hand on the actual weapon?

    --
    Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
    What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
    understand?
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

    Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

    Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege wrote:
    > This just came up in tonight's session:
    >
    > Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    > rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    > weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    > can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >
    > When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    > 'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    > a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    > because he can use it two-handed.
    >
    > That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    > DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    > can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    > to use a shield.
    >
    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?
    >
    > Fortunately, the equipment book we use (Goods and Gear, by Kenzer and
    > Company; we play Kalamar), specifically mentions when weapons can be
    > used two-handed, so I ruled (with my players' agreement) that all
    > martial weapons are one-handed unless mentioned otherwise.
    >
    > There'll be a few snarls on the way; e.g. I don't know (no PHB handy)
    > if the rules in the PHB specifically state what can be used two-handed
    > and what not. I know of the bastard sword, but that's about it.
    >
    > Thoughts anyone? Is my ruling overly harsh, or is it a good idea, and
    > if yes to the latter, how do I handle the standard weapons? Ideas,
    > suggestions?
    >
    > Mart
    >

    Well, since the PHB mentions more than once the idea of using a one-handed
    weapon in two hands, I don't see a problem with it.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Sea Wasp" <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
    news:426B8B96.30905@sgeobviousinc.com...
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > >>You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    > >>proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    > >>some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    > >>Typical Western swords don't have that.
    > >
    > > Since when?
    >
    > Since forever. Some do -- like the Bastard -- but I have three swords
    > here in my house, typical Western designs, and none of them can
    > accomodate two hands on the handle.

    My two Western swords can. Fallacy of small sample sizes. Be quiet.

    -Michael
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > "Sea Wasp" <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
    > news:426B8B96.30905@sgeobviousinc.com...
    >
    >>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >>
    >>>>You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    >>>>proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    >>>>some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    >>>>Typical Western swords don't have that.
    >>>
    >>>Since when?
    >>
    >>Since forever. Some do -- like the Bastard -- but I have three swords
    >>here in my house, typical Western designs, and none of them can
    >>accomodate two hands on the handle.
    >
    >
    > My two Western swords can. Fallacy of small sample sizes. Be quiet.
    >
    > -Michael
    >
    >

    Produce statistics showing 50% or more of Wastern design swords had
    hilts designed to acommodate 1 or 2-handed use. Otherwise you're
    shooting as much from the hip as anyone else.

    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Christopher Adams just
    said...
    > Sampo Smolander wrote:
    > >
    > > If the handle is something like this:
    > > http://therionarms.com/antiques/therionarms_c503.html
    > > then even is the sword is clearly a one-handed sword (because
    > > of its length and weight), there shoulf be no problen using
    > > it two-handed.
    >
    > If nothing else, is it not possible to conceive of a grip utilising both hands
    > and arms which nevertheless has only one hand on the actual weapon?

    I'm not sure what you mean here.

    The point *I* was going to make was that the grip isn't necessarily the
    only place you put your hands. Few swords are anywhere near as sharp as
    people often assume (and in any event you're *always* wearing gauntlets
    or at least thick gloves when fighting with them), so staff-like grips
    with one hand on the blade do get used on a semiregular basis. This is
    particularly true if the weapon has a ricasso, a particularly blunt
    portion near the grip. Such a grip isn't the mainstay of anyone's
    fighting style but it has a part to play.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Heikkinen" <no.way@jose.org> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cd5a215c61c3fa098a122@news.easynews.com...
    > The point *I* was going to make was that the grip isn't necessarily the
    > only place you put your hands. Few swords are anywhere near as sharp as
    > people often assume (and in any event you're *always* wearing gauntlets
    > or at least thick gloves when fighting with them), so staff-like grips
    > with one hand on the blade do get used on a semiregular basis. This is
    > particularly true if the weapon has a ricasso, a particularly blunt
    > portion near the grip. Such a grip isn't the mainstay of anyone's
    > fighting style but it has a part to play.

    I'd be surprised if any sword well-made to be used in such fashion
    wasn't already in the d10+ size category for D&D purposes, though.

    -Michael
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege wrote:
    > Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Mart van de Wege just
    >>said...
    >>
    >>>This just came up in tonight's session:
    >>>
    >>>Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    >>>rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    >>>weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    >>>can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >>>
    >>>When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    >>>'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    >>>a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    >>>because he can use it two-handed.
    >>>
    >>>That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    >>>DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    >>>can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    >>>to use a shield.
    >>
    >>Step 1: Read the rules for weapon size near the beginning of chapter 7
    >>of the PH.
    >>
    >>Step 2: Shoot yourself in the head.
    >
    >
    > I did look up the rules in the meantime. And as it happens, I agree
    > with my player that this is the RAW, as his rules knowledge is
    > impeccable.
    >
    > I still don't like the abstraction one bit. I used a longsword as an
    > example, because from what I know, giving it a 1.5 damage modifier
    > based on two-handed use is silly given the hilt design. Any longsword
    > with a hilt long enough to be effectively used two-handed would be
    > more of a bastard sword IMO. Neither do my players like the
    > abstraction, by the way, which is why everyone settled on an
    > interpretation that was not RAW, but acceptable to all.
    >
    > But before we set this into a houserule, or overturn it, I'd like some
    > useful thoughts. Even Michael was more useful than you in this
    > instance.
    >
    > Mart
    >
    >

    Pick up a baseball bat and swing it around one-handed. Take a whack at
    a ball someone
    tosses you. You can do it, but you're not going to get a lot of power.

    Now try it two-handed. Feel the added crack of the wood on the ball?

    Substitute any reasonable melee weapon (sword, mace) for the bat. Note that
    the same thing applies, i.e. you get more driving force when you get 2
    hands on
    it.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    > Produce statistics showing 50% or more of Wastern design swords had
    > hilts designed to acommodate 1 or 2-handed use. Otherwise you're
    > shooting as much from the hip as anyone else.

    Why are you focusing on the hilt, when Western swords often rely on the
    ricasso for two-handed use?
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87ll784ifg.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    >
    > I still don't like the abstraction one bit. I used a longsword as an
    > example, because from what I know, giving it a 1.5 damage modifier
    > based on two-handed use is silly given the hilt design. Any longsword
    > with a hilt long enough to be effectively used two-handed would be
    > more of a bastard sword IMO. Neither do my players like the
    > abstraction, by the way, which is why everyone settled on an
    > interpretation that was not RAW, but acceptable to all.
    >

    Well, if that's your definition, (a longsword is a sword that can't be
    used two handed), then, of course a longsword can't be used two-handed.

    All the longswords that I've seen have had sufficient hilt to be used
    two-handed, but YMMV.

    Geoff.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
    news:GKKae.11904$An2.11863@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    > news:87d5sk4hrk.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    >> "Geoff Watson" <geoffwatson@pacific.net.au> writes:
    >> > Why do you think that longswords have tiny hilts?
    >>
    >> I don't consider a length of just over one hands' breadth tiny. But
    >> still not useful for two-handed fighting.
    >
    > Just how much grip on the pommel do you think is necessary for
    > two-handed fighting?

    You wouldn't need any, in my opinion, beyond what's needed to hold it in
    one hand. Imagine a longsword with a grip just long enough for one hand.
    (Ignoring that this mythical sword now has no counterweight, and probably
    isn't a good swinging weapon anymore). Swing sword one-handed. If you
    make contact, THEN the other hand comes into play, possibly striking the
    back of the blade, possibly pushing the base of the hilt to shove the
    sword in deeper, possibly covering your main hand to help you twist.
    Since the second hand doesn't help you to hit, it's not particularly
    necessary that it be used all the time, just when damage is actually
    done.

    I think Mart is imagining a baseball bat grip as the only possible way to
    use a sword one-handed, which is a tragic lack of imagination.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in
    news:426B8B96.30905@sgeobviousinc.com:

    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>You are correct. Katanas SPECIFICALLY have very long handles in
    >>>proportion, to allow one or two-handed use on demand (which allows
    >>>some very speedy maneuvers that one-handed weapons can't match).
    >>>Typical Western swords don't have that.
    >>
    >>
    >> Since when?
    >
    > Since forever. Some do -- like the Bastard -- but I have three
    > swords
    > here in my house, typical Western designs, and none of them can
    > accomodate two hands on the handle.
    >

    Can you link to a picture of a sword designed similar to yours?
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Justin Bacon" <triad3204@aol.com> writes:

    <snip>>
    > So, when it comes to D&D, the term "longsword" has been arbitrarily
    > assigned to "a sword light enough that you can wield it effectively in
    > one hand; but with a hilt designed so that you can use it in two hands
    > if you want to".
    >
    > Now, IYO, the term longsword should ACTUALLY be applied only to "a
    > sword that can only be used in one-hand, but larger than a shortsword".
    > That's fine. And if you want to put some houserules in place which
    > re-label D&D's classifications, I don't see the problem. (Although I
    > rather suspect it'll end up causing you endless headaches.)

    That was more or less the point, yes. Especially since I have an
    equipment book handy that does provide enough detail to handle this
    without much headaches. *And* I happen to know a bit about antique
    weapons. Not much, but enough to see that the generic weapons are just
    an abstraction.

    However, to avoid *all* headaches, I'd have to restrict my players
    from the generic weapons in the PHB. That's something I'm not willing
    to do.

    So, I'm going to settle for a compromise. The generic weapons in the
    PHB will apply the rules as written, the specific weapons will get
    handled according to my original plan.

    I never liked the generic system all that much either after the
    3.0->3.5 upgrade. So I'll have to reclassify a bit. Not much of a
    bother, since I was planning on having a restricted amount of weapons
    available in shops anyway. No way any weaponsmith will carry any
    weapon the players happen to want. They'll be able to get their
    favourites, but they'll have to find the right seller first (not that
    I'm going to make that overly difficult, I like realism, but I'm not a
    slave to it).

    Thankfully the system is flexible enough to handle the additional
    detail. The hard work is for the DM; the players just have to worry
    about the stats of the weapon, *I* have to work them out.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Robert Singers wrote:
    > Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Bradd W. Szonye
    said
    >
    > > Sea Wasp wrote
    > >> Produce statistics showing 50% or more of Wastern design swords
    had
    > >> hilts designed to acommodate 1 or 2-handed use. Otherwise you're
    > >> shooting as much from the hip as anyone else.
    > >
    > > Why are you focusing on the hilt, when Western swords often rely on
    the
    > > ricasso for two-handed use?
    >
    > Because they'd have to take their hands off their shafts to notice
    them!

    "Calling Hong to the red courtesy phone... Hong to the red courtesy
    phone..."

    --
    Justin Bacon
    triad3204@aol.com
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> typed:

    >I still don't like the abstraction one bit. I used a longsword as an
    >example, because from what I know, giving it a 1.5 damage modifier
    >based on two-handed use is silly given the hilt design. Any longsword
    >with a hilt long enough to be effectively used two-handed would be
    >more of a bastard sword IMO.

    Look at the picture of the longsword, shortsword, bastard sword etc in
    the PHB (3.0 p103, dunno about 3.5). The hilt of the longsword is
    almost as long as that of the bastard sword and MUCH longer than that
    of the shortsword or dagger.

    Which rather suggests that the 1H weapons are capable of being used
    2-handed, and the light weapons are not.


    --
    Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

    D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Chipacabra wrote:

    > Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
    > news:87sm1h3w9q.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan:
    >
    >
    >>This just came up in tonight's session:
    >>
    >>Our barbarian is using what amounts to a katana (although the setting
    >>rules called it something else, for some silly reason). He uses this
    >>weapon two-handed, as the weapon description specifically states it
    >>can be used so. It is also classified as a martial weapon.
    >>
    >>When dividing the loot of some fallen enemies, they get several
    >>'Eldril', basically a longsword-like weapon that does 2d4 damage with
    >>a 18-20 crit range. Someone suggests that the barbarian take it,
    >>because he can use it two-handed.
    >>
    >>That grated on my nerves a bit. According to one player (our regular
    >>DM), this is according to the rules: all one-handed martial weapons
    >>can be used two-handed for extra damage, the only penalty being unable
    >>to use a shield.
    >
    >
    > It's true. The division goes:
    > Two handed weapon: Need two hands.
    > One handed weapon: Need one hand, two hands optional.
    > Light weapon: One hand only.
    >
    > All nice and consistent.

    Works for me!

    Now stop arguing you fhqgads.

    - Ron ^*^
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege wrote:

    > "Willie" <wroop@net-link.net> writes:
    >
    >
    >
    >>The advice that my Dwarven Earth Druid is giving me is .....
    >>Tell the silly GIT to put down the toothpick and pick up a
    >>REAL weapon! Nothing says hurtin like a well crafted AXE!
    >
    >
    > Nice, and true, and totally what my Barbarian player wants to do In
    > Character.
    >
    > Too bad the nearest weaponsmith is going to take a good look at our
    > party and call in the slavers. They're escaped slaves, currently
    > trekking through the wilderness to escape.
    >
    > Once they get across the mountains, there will be settlements that are
    > safe to visit. *Then* he can upgrade his weapon choice.

    Blah blah blah, RAW, blah blah blah. Kee-RIST on a pogo stick! This
    has GOT to be the stupidest argument I have ever SEEN on this newsgroup,
    and believe me that's *saying* something! The rules aren't unbalancing
    and what you are arguing about is what a "longsword" is, which is the
    equivalent to arguing about what "is" is. The PHB defines a longsword
    as the kind of sword you can use either way -- anything smaller would be
    more properly called a SHORT sword. So unless these blades were made by
    Saurials -- which they might have been! -- stop trying to screw the
    barbarian over and let him have his monster Power Attack!

    Now ENOUGH about this already!

    - Ron ^*^
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justin Bacon wrote:

    > Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >
    >>I still don't like the abstraction one bit. I used a longsword as an
    >>example, because from what I know, giving it a 1.5 damage modifier
    >>based on two-handed use is silly given the hilt design. Any longsword
    >>with a hilt long enough to be effectively used two-handed would be
    >>more of a bastard sword IMO. Neither do my players like the
    >>abstraction, by the way, which is why everyone settled on an
    >>interpretation that was not RAW, but acceptable to all.
    >
    >
    > For this discussion to have meaning, you first need to understand that
    > -- in the real world -- there is no hard-and-fast definition of terms
    > like "short sword", "long sword", "bastard sword", etc. The terms were
    > fairly fluid and geographically inconsistent over the course of
    > history, and in the modern age scholars have differing opinions over
    > (a) what each term means in any given primary text; (b) whether or not
    > the terms should be standardized for modern usage; and (c) if they are
    > to be standardized, how they'll be standardized. To take one example,
    > many sources I've seen use the terms "long sword" and "bastard sword"
    > interchangeably.
    >
    > So, when it comes to D&D, these terms are -- for all intents and
    > purposes -- *arbitrarily* assigned to various types of swords. (Because
    > D&D, after all, is a rule system. And for a rule system you need the
    > type of simply consistency which the real world, in all its pesky
    > complexity, frequently dispenses with.)
    >
    > So, when it comes to D&D, the term "longsword" has been arbitrarily
    > assigned to "a sword light enough that you can wield it effectively in
    > one hand; but with a hilt designed so that you can use it in two hands
    > if you want to".
    >
    > Now, IYO, the term longsword should ACTUALLY be applied only to "a
    > sword that can only be used in one-hand, but larger than a shortsword".
    > That's fine. And if you want to put some houserules in place which
    > re-label D&D's classifications, I don't see the problem. (Although I
    > rather suspect it'll end up causing you endless headaches.)

    Yep! You're RIGHT on the money!

    - Ron ^*^
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Produce statistics showing 50% or more of Wastern design swords had
    >>hilts designed to acommodate 1 or 2-handed use. Otherwise you're
    >>shooting as much from the hip as anyone else.
    >
    >
    > Why are you focusing on the hilt, when Western swords often rely on the
    > ricasso for two-handed use?

    I doubt it matters. Adding in all shortswords, rapiers, cavalry
    sabers, etc, manufactured I'm pretty sure that if you CAN get stats on
    it that more than 50% were not made with reasonable 2-hand use in
    mind. I.e., sure you can bunch both hands around the hilt of my
    rapier, but swinging it that way won't make you do more damage, except
    maybe to the blade if you hit something wrong.

    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >
    >> Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Produce statistics showing 50% or more of Wastern design swords had
    >>> hilts designed to acommodate 1 or 2-handed use. Otherwise you're
    >>> shooting as much from the hip as anyone else.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Why are you focusing on the hilt, when Western swords often rely on the
    >> ricasso for two-handed use?
    >
    >
    > I doubt it matters. Adding in all shortswords, rapiers, cavalry
    > sabers, etc, manufactured I'm pretty sure that if you CAN get stats on
    > it that more than 50% were not made with reasonable 2-hand use in mind.
    > I.e., sure you can bunch both hands around the hilt of my rapier, but
    > swinging it that way won't make you do more damage, except maybe to the
    > blade if you hit something wrong.
    >

    Of the various swords I own, only the cavalry sabers (or sabres, for our
    Great British
    readers) would be difficult to use two-handed since they have basket hilts.

    However, I think they *could* be so used if for some reason it was
    necessary.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
    > Christopher Adams wrote:
    >
    >> If nothing else, is it not possible to conceive of a grip utilising
    >> both hands and arms which nevertheless has only one hand on the actual
    >> weapon?
    >
    > I'm not sure what you mean here.

    It's not the most efficient grip, compared to actually being able to hold parts
    of the weapon, but it *is* possible to employ both hands in a swing where one
    hand is on the weapon and the other is gripping your hand, or wrist.

    --
    Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
    What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
    understand?
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

    Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

    Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> writes:

    >
    > Pick up a baseball bat and swing it around one-handed. Take a whack
    > at a ball someone
    > tosses you. You can do it, but you're not going to get a lot of power.
    >
    > Now try it two-handed. Feel the added crack of the wood on the ball?
    >
    > Substitute any reasonable melee weapon (sword, mace) for the bat. Note that
    > the same thing applies, i.e. you get more driving force when you get 2
    > hands on
    > it.

    I *know* that, you git. I am not disputing the damage modifier for
    two-handed use. I am disputing the kind of weapon that would qualify
    for that use, which you would have known if you had actually *read* my
    postings.

    The way the PHB treats the longsword, it's more of a bastard sword in
    historical terms. I can live with that, but if I have more detailed
    weapons descriptions available, I'm damn well going to use them to
    some effect.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> writes:

    > Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
    >> Produce statistics showing 50% or more of Wastern design swords had
    >> hilts designed to acommodate 1 or 2-handed use. Otherwise you're
    >> shooting as much from the hip as anyone else.
    >
    > Why are you focusing on the hilt, when Western swords often rely on the
    > ricasso for two-handed use?

    *Often*?

    Cites please. I will accept that Western swords could be used that
    way. I refuse to believe that was common practice without some cites.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege wrote:


    > That just sounds *wrong* to me. For example, a longsword has a hilt
    > that is too short to effectively hold in two hands and use in combat,
    > so why would I allow two-handed use in that case?
    >

    >
    > Mart
    >

    There are also techniques for two hands when fighting with a short
    hilted weapon. The second hand goes behind the pommel, giving you more
    oomph in a thrust. The second hand can also go around the primary hand.

    CH
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Bradd W. Szonye said

    > Sea Wasp wrote
    >> Produce statistics showing 50% or more of Wastern design swords had
    >> hilts designed to acommodate 1 or 2-handed use. Otherwise you're
    >> shooting as much from the hip as anyone else.
    >
    > Why are you focusing on the hilt, when Western swords often rely on the
    > ricasso for two-handed use?

    Because they'd have to take their hands off their shafts to notice them!

    --
    Rob Singers
    "All your Ron are belong to us"
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justin Bacon <triad3204@aol.com> wrote:
    > So, when it comes to D&D, the term "longsword" has been arbitrarily
    > assigned to "a sword light enough that you can wield it effectively in
    > one hand; but with a hilt designed so that you can use it in two hands
    > if you want to".

    This http://www.swordschool.com/en/weapons_longsword.html
    gives me the impression that the words "longsword" and "bastard sword"
    have originally had quite same meaning.

    Maybe the distiction longsword = d8 and bastard sword = d10
    is only an artefact and a product of rpg rule systems?
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games