D&D 5E Two-Handed Weapon + Shield

[Caliban]

Improvised weapons are either close enough to a real weapon to be used as such or does 1d4 damage. Since a two-handed weapon does not resemble a weapon that can be wielded in one hand, at best it does 1d4 damage. If your DM rules that it can be wielded one handed.

Well, some of us think it a two-handed weapon DOES resemble a weapon that can be used in one hand. i.e. a greatsword and a longsword are both swords (it's right there in the name), one is "just" bigger than the other.

If you disagree with that, then rule it an improvised weapon and be done with it. The discussion in this thread doesn't concern you, since it's a just a bunch of wrong-minded people debating imaginary stuff that doesn't matter.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Appreciate most of the feedback. Not trying to "have my cake and eat it, too", just trying to find unique combo's. Not sure what right-minded individual would accept 1d4 Damage as an Improvised Weapon with a Great Sword in exchange for the +2 AC from the Shield.

Not many individuals tried to fight effectively with a shield in one hand and a two-handed sword in the other either. Those two statements might have a connection . . .

There is nothing stopping you from simply describing your character's longsword as being "huge, closer to the size of a two-hander", if that is the image that you want to go for. Its still just going to deal d8 damage though.

Everybody has already pointed out how an AC 16-19 is worthless anyways.

No. A few people who happen to have one particular personal opinion might have stated that, or you have decided that that is what they were saying.
Doesn't make it true.

Well, some of us think it a two-handed weapon DOES resemble a weapon that can be used in one hand. i.e. a greatsword and a longsword are both swords (it's right there in the name), one is "just" bigger than the other.

If you disagree with that, then rule it an improvised weapon and be done with it. The discussion in this thread doesn't concern you, since it's a just a bunch of wrong-minded people debating imaginary stuff that doesn't matter.

Size matters. As does weight. I don't see an issue with ruling that trying to use a greatsword one-handed is going to cause issues with hitting stuff, and the lack of force and control is going to tank the damage that it would deal as well.

 

[Caliban]

Size matters. As does weight. I don't see an issue with ruling that trying to use a greatsword one-handed is going to cause issues with hitting stuff, and the lack of force and control is going to tank the damage that it would deal as well.

Absolutely. I just don't think it's "improvised", which is why I said I would rule it the way I did in a previous post.

 

[Ancalagon]

Right, so what's the problem with that that people are trying to solve by ruling some other way?

It doesn't feel right. I'm firmly in the camp that it's a *bad idea* to use a zweihander with a single hand. However, if you *do* manage to hit someone through a mix of skill, opponent ineptitude and sheer luck, you will do far more damage than with say, a tennis racket (an improvised weapon)

 

[Horwath]

It doesn't feel right. I'm firmly in the camp that it's a *bad idea* to use a zweihander with a single hand. However, if you *do* manage to hit someone through a mix of skill, opponent ineptitude and sheer luck, you will do far more damage than with say, a tennis racket (an improvised weapon)

This.

Even if you raise your 5-6lb greatsword vertically and drop it just via gravity just rotating with your arm, its probably enough to chop someones arm at the shouldet clean off.

 

[Oofta]

Well, some of us think it a two-handed weapon DOES resemble a weapon that can be used in one hand. i.e. a greatsword and a longsword are both swords (it's right there in the name), one is "just" bigger than the other.

If you disagree with that, then rule it an improvised weapon and be done with it. The discussion in this thread doesn't concern you, since it's a just a bunch of wrong-minded people debating imaginary stuff that doesn't matter.

If you want to play a cartoon version of a character that can wield ridiculously over-sized swords in one hand and your DM is ok with it, there isn't a problem.

If you want a discussion on whether or not this is allowed by the rules or makes sense physically, post to this forum.

If you don't want answers you don't agree with, don't post.

 

[Caliban]

If you want to play a cartoon version of a character that can wield ridiculously over-sized swords in one hand and your DM is ok with it, there isn't a problem.

Whoah there chief. No one has talked about playing a "a cartoon version of a character that can wield ridiculously over-sized swords in one hand" except for you. Don't drag me into whatever imaginary argument is going on in your head.

If you want a discussion on whether or not this is allowed by the rules or makes sense physically, post to this forum.

You should absolutely do that. But this discussion was about normal sized swords, either one handed or two handed, and what makes sense when attempting to wield them. Not "ridiculously oversized swords", as you (and only you) seem to believe.

Regarding the issue that was actually being discussed in this thread, I made what I believe to be some reasonable and well thought out arguments, plus one joke that seems to have offended you. For that, I apologize and politely request you remove the stick from your posterior. It really is just a game.

If you don't want answers you don't agree with, don't post.

Words to live by. But then, I'm just a wrong-minded person debating imaginary stuff that doesn't matter.

 

[Oofta]

Whoah there chief. No one has talked about playing a "a cartoon version of a character that can wield ridiculously over-sized swords in one hand" except for you. Don't drag me into whatever imaginary argument is going on in your head.



You should absolutely do that. But this discussion was about normal sized swords, either one handed or two handed, and what makes sense when attempting to wield them. Not "ridiculously oversized swords", as you (and only you) seem to believe.

Regarding the issue that was actually being discussed in this thread, I made what I believe to be some reasonable and well thought out arguments, plus one joke that seems to have offended you. For that, I apologize and politely request you remove the stick from your posterior. It really is just a game.




Words to live by. But then, I'm just a wrong-minded person debating imaginary stuff that doesn't matter.

Playing a game that has less adherence to our reality (my definition of a cartoon universe) is a perfectly valid play style. It's not an insult.

In my opinion a claymore in one hand is ridiculously oversized as a one-handed weapon. Well, it's probably oversized as a standard melee weapon too but that's a whole other issue.

An analogy would be using a hatchet vs using an ax. If I were chopping wood and could only use one hand, the hatchet will be much more effective at the job than the ax. The ax may be heavier, it still has a blade, but I can't control the swing or put any oomph behind it because the balance is all off. My chopping speed would be significantly slower and I'd probably end up chopping my own foot off. An ax is only more effective if I have two hands. Someone using an ax one handed only happens in cartoons. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just not realistic.

Tone doesn't always come across in these forums and it's not the end of the world that we disagree. I'm just giving my opinion as a DM and as someone who has used hatchets/axes extensively (and one-handed and two-handed hammers) even if I've never swung a real sword in my life. An implement designed to be used as only two handed cannot effectively be used one handed.

 

[Caliban]

Tone doesn't always come across in these forums and it's not the end of the world that we disagree. I'm just giving my opinion as a DM and as someone who has used hatchets/axes extensively (and one-handed and two-handed hammers) even if I've never swung a real sword in my life. An implement designed to be used as only two handed cannot effectively be used one handed.

Well, the part that is puzzling me about this that we don't actually disagree. I really am at a loss as to why you chose to argue with someone who started off by agreeing with you. [Hint: go read my very first post in this thread.]

 

[Oofta]

:sigh:

Let me be clear. I didn't mean to step on toes or insult anyone.

As far as wielding a two-handed sword as if it were a longsword, I don't feel that the weight, balance or size of a two-handed sword is similar enough to a longsword to qualify. Therefore it becomes an improvised weapon and does 1d4 damage.

Whether or not it qualifies is up to the DM. People have different play styles and that should be acknowledged. I would view PCs wielding a claymore as if it were a longsword cartoonish, if you are the DM and you disagree then it's fine.

The alternative is to come up with some kind of house rule for this specific instance, which is also up to the DM.