D&D 5E Two-Handed Weapon + Shield

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm a good longswordsman (I mean the historical longsword, not the D&D one) *at all*, but my first impression when I saw that one handed wielding was "a longswordsman would *murderise* this guy". Granting advantage in certain tremendously unbalanced matchup could make sense.

I think a quarterstaf should be lighter than that 8 pound monstrosity incidentally. I agree that the one hand use is odd.

Incidentally, it's now believed that quarterstaves were used in the middle age not in the eastern style (holding it with both hand 2 feet appart in the middle) but rather like a greatsword (one hand near one tip, one hand about 1/4 of the way up). It essentially made the quarterstaff like a very long and very fast wooden sword. They did some tests with it and they found that a man armed like this could keep at bay two swordsmen, thus the defensive reputation of the weapon. What we see in movies is inspired by the "bo" wielding from the east and that can be an effecive style. But it's not how it was done in Europe... and I think that that style is just as cool if not cooler

Generally the quarterstaff is held along the last quarter-ish of its length (although this is possibly not anything to do with the name.) Its not good as a military weapon, but has great advantages against civilian swordsmen.

And no, it can't be wielded effectively one-handed. I don't care what Gandalf was doing with it.
I'd just view anyone using the "D&D quarterstaff" in one hand as using a jo, or other short staff rather than an actual quarterstaff.

But a dnd greatsword can't be used one-handed (at least not by the rules) so wouldn't that make it more like the claymore? I thought the former dnd bastard sword was more like the historical longsword. The 5e longsword almost seems right with it's versatile property, except that nearly everyone uses it one-handed in practice.

A historical longsword pretty much straddles the line between bastard sword and two-handed sword. Its pretty much exclusively used two-handed (There are specific maneuvers such as the spear-like stab shown in the video, or striking with the pommel or guard that can be executed by one hand but actually fighting with the sword requires both hands.) Bastard swords, arming swords and such are what D&D longswords are, and can be used one-handed or two-handed.

 

[Ancalagon]

Generally the quarterstaff is held along the last quarter-ish of its length (although this is possibly not anything to do with the name.) Its not good as a military weapon, but has great advantages against civilian swordsmen.

And no, it can't be wielded effectively one-handed. I don't care what Gandalf was doing with it.
I'd just view anyone using the "D&D quarterstaff" in one hand as using a jo, or other short staff rather than an actual quarterstaff.

A historical longsword pretty much straddles the line between bastard sword and two-handed sword. Its pretty much exclusively used two-handed (There are specific maneuvers such as the spear-like stab shown in the video, or striking with the pommel or guard that can be executed by one hand but actually fighting with the sword requires both hands.) Bastard swords, arming swords and such are what D&D longswords are, and can be used one-handed or two-handed.

I completely agree with you on the one handed quarterstaff - a 3-4 foot long stout stick? Sure. but something as tall as you are? That's rather awkward with a single hand... Mind you, a 3-4 foot long stick could be used to great effect two handed...

A historical longsword was, as you say, really best used when used two handed. I think it *could* be used one handed but it wouldn't work very well... but still better than a true zweihander!

 

[Horwath]

And what was known as zweihander was in effect a reach weapon.
It was used to break through the spear/pike formations and when you went into the ranks you "halfsword" it and used it as a spear more or less.

 

[Li Shenron]

I was swinging at stationary targets while holding a huge round shield over 48" in diameter in my left hand.

I am a big guy and hit with decent power. Recovery time- fhuggetaboutit! Getting that thing set again for another swing wasn't quick. Even a moderately fast fighter with a normal broad sword would have had a chance to whoop on me 3 or 4 times before I was ready to swing again.

It LOOKS intimidating as heck standing there wielding a picnic table on your arm and a six foot sword in the other- until you actually throw a blow. Then you see how a more reasonably armed fighter would send you to the afterlife before you got a second swing.

Great, thanks for the first-hand report!

Which actually tells me that it is impossible to fight like that, and so it should not be allowed by default even with disadvantage.

 

[Azurewraith]

I let a player do this we worked out he attacked with disadvantage and lost tgr extra attack feature. The shield they used was a a special artifact though it was more like chainmail than a solid shield

 

[ExploderWizard]

Great, thanks for the first-hand report!

Which actually tells me that it is impossible to fight like that, and so it should not be allowed by default even with disadvantage.

Its not impossible to fight like that. It is nearly impossible to WIN like that. This is one of the types of things GURPS handles so well. So you would swing your clumsy weapon then spend the next two combat rounds readying it for another swing. Meanwhile, the guy with the smaller faster weapon gives you a whoopin.

Disadvantage in 5E doesn't do the actual disadvantage justice. The combat system is too abstract.

 

[Li Shenron]

Its not impossible to fight like that. It is nearly impossible to WIN like that. This is one of the types of things GURPS handles so well. So you would swing your clumsy weapon then spend the next two combat rounds readying it for another swing. Meanwhile, the guy with the smaller faster weapon gives you a whoopin.

Disadvantage in 5E doesn't do the actual disadvantage justice. The combat system is too abstract.

Well I am not sure... what is the point in having a rule for something that is so ineffective? IMHO having a detailed rule that describes how much you would suck if you want to fight like that isn't more useful than a rule that just says "don't do it".

 

[Caliban]

I'm in agreement that it is generally to ineffective to be worth doing. But if a situation came up where a player really wanted to (or had no other choice) I'd probably rule it this way: Wielding a Heavy weapon in one hand gives you Disadvantage on all attacks made with the weapon (it is literally unwieldy), you cannot make Extra attacks on the same attack action (it takes to long to reset/recover after an attack), and the weapon damage die is reduced one step (you cannot put as much force behind it).

Something like the Monkey Grip feat suggested by Horwath would remove the Disadvantage and allow you to make Extra attacks, but the reduced damage die would still apply.

 

[Ancalagon]

btw, I've seen people fight with "shoulder" shields - small shields strapped on top of their armor while wielding a weapon two handed. I don't know if it's actually effective though ?

 

[Caliban]

btw, I've seen people fight with "shoulder" shields - small shields strapped on top of their armor while wielding a weapon two handed. I don't know if it's actually effective though ?

It probably gives at least a minor defensive advantage, but I'm not sure if it could be adequately represented in 5e. At best it would be a +1 AC. Maybe require a feat or fighting style to take advantage of it?