Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

One-handed vs. Two-handed

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:31:45 AM

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.

More about : handed handed

Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:31:46 AM

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/
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:31:46 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:31:46 AM

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
April 24, 2005 5:31:46 AM

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....
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:31:47 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:47:18 AM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:19:48 AM

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).
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:58:52 AM

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
>
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:52:17 AM

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
April 24, 2005 10:31:32 AM

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/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: It could be worse... but it'll take time.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:58:36 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:09:52 PM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:45:23 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:45:24 PM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:55:45 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:55:46 PM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:55:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:59:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:59:44 PM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 4:02:29 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 4:04:00 PM

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/
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:12:46 PM

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/
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:12:47 PM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:20:12 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:15:14 PM

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/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:05:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:53:32 PM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:43:04 PM

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/
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:31:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:42:59 PM

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
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 11:26:38 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:07:42 AM

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
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:26:00 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:35:51 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:36:47 AM

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?
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:49:44 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:33:14 AM

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
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:39:46 AM

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
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 2:18:11 AM

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 ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 2:24:57 AM

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 ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 2:26:24 AM

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 ^*^
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:06:20 AM

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/
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:06:21 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:06:50 AM

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/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 10:55:14 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 11:02:53 AM

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.
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:10:26 PM

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
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:39:13 PM

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
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 2:32:41 PM

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?
!