Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[IcyCool]

Really?

Well, since I've been the rookie in that equation (boffer weapons), I'd bet on the two-weapons guy.

It's far, far too easy to just take your off- or main-hand weapon, bind the other guy's weapon out of line, and whack him with your free hand.

I've also been the rookie in that situation (both sides), and all I can say to you is, if you managed to not get hosed by the two-hander, congrats.

All I can say is that in my experience, the two-hander generally prevails until the two-weapon gains enough skill.

And according to Patryn's experience, the reverse is true. So there you are

 

[sfedi]

I've also been the rookie in that situation (both sides), and all I can say to you is, if you managed to not get hosed by the two-hander, congrats.

All I can say is that in my experience, the two-hander generally prevails until the two-weapon gains enough skill.

I don't know about eral life, but historically, people fought with two handed weapons or shields.

Even then, in Fantasy, two weapons was for some, not everyone.

So there you go, ficiton and non-fiction "support" that TWF should be inferior (or at least, less popular) than classical two handed or sword & shield

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't know about eral life, but historically, people fought with two handed weapons or shields.

Even then, in Fantasy, two weapons was for some, not everyone.

So there you go, ficiton and non-fiction "support" that TWF should be inferior (or at least, less popular) than classical two handed or sword & shield

Quote a non-fiction source.

My reading has indicated that most historical fighting was done with:

1) missile weapons (slings, darts, and arrows, crossbow bolts in later centuries)
2) polearms (easy to teach to peasants)
3) single handed weapons with no shields
4) single handed weapons with shields, typically used in formations since Roman times
5) two weapons with a smaller secondary weapon for parrying / in close thrusting

Two handed weapons are rarely found in the historical literature. Yes, they have found some very large swords, but many of those were ceremonial.

The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit. A two handed sword is not very functional in battle. It tires you out quicker, it is clumsy, it is harder to use, it is difficult to parry with, it is slower to react with. Compare it to tennis. When a tennis player is at the service line, they can use a two handed backhand. They have time to set it up. When they are at the net and have to react faster, they almost never use a two handed backhand. There's a reason rooted in the Laws of Physics for that.

There were also more two handed axes used than two handed swords and even two handed axes were relatively rare. Two handed axes are easier and more versatile to use than two handed swords because of the length of the handle. You can choke up during close in fighting.


With regard to DND, a two handed weapon should have a penalty on Attacks of Opportunity. It is time consuming to get such a weapon positioned properly to attack people in all directions.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've also been the rookie in that situation (both sides), and all I can say to you is, if you managed to not get hosed by the two-hander, congrats.

All I can say is that in my experience, the two-hander generally prevails until the two-weapon gains enough skill.

And according to Patryn's experience, the reverse is true. So there you are

Yes, my experiences were similar to Patryn's in one on one situations.

The easiest combination to use is a single weapon.

The second easiest is two weapon.

Two handed weapon and weapon and shield appear tied for lack of ease of use in one on one situations.

Weapon and shield is not too hard to use, but it's easy to lose with weapon and shield until you get skilled with them. The problem with it is that the shield can block your vision, especially if you bring it up to block a head shot. But, it can even block your vision if you use it in a closed formation position from low shots. It's pretty easy to fake out someone with a shield.

Weapon and shield use is vastly superior in closed rank formations.

 

[Diirk]

Two handed weapons are rarely found in the historical literature. Yes, they have found some very large swords, but many of those were ceremonial.

The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit. A two handed sword is not very functional in battle. It tires you out quicker, it is clumsy, it is harder to use, it is difficult to parry with, it is slower to react with. Compare it to tennis. When a tennis player is at the service line, they can use a two handed backhand. They have time to set it up. When they are at the net and have to react faster, they almost never use a two handed backhand. There's a reason rooted in the Laws of Physics for that.

I have no idea on the accuracy, but http://mu.ranter.net/theory/weapons.html is an interesting read. From there:

"The nigh-universal image of the fantasy warrior with a greatsword is of a brawny hulk swinging a gigantic piece of metal around his head, cleaving hapless foes in two. The UO animation for halberds is of someone holding the head over his shoulder and swinging it into the target. As a result, these weapons have traditionally been assigned very high damage ratings because of the momentum that must have been imparted by such herculean swings, and very low speed ratings because of the effort it must have taken to lob around a giant piece of metal.

Long weapons like the greatsword and polearms were used because they offered the same advantage as a spear: that of reach. The greatsword in particular often lacked cutting edges altogether, and was used as a stabbing weapon. The proper techniques associated with the use of polearms typically involved extension toward the enemy and some sort of use of the head, with relatively little movement. The halberd, arguably the most successful of the ornate polearms, had no less than 3 distinct functions, including stabbing like a spear, hamstringing enemies like a scythe, and dismounting knights like a bill hook. Among its purposes was not to be swung like a giant battleaxe."

I can't remember where atm, but I did find a website that talked about the very large two handed swords either... swords that were as big as the wielder, like you see in computer games... they look ridiculous, but they really existed ! Mostly as execution blades to be sure, but one was used as a mounted weapon in some asian country I think... I forget the name of it.

 

[sfedi]

Quote a non-fiction source.

I was thinking mostly on oriental sword-fight.
In which they had a two handed sword, and very quick strokes.

Although as you point, the second weapon was more of a shield/parrying instrument rather than "another weapon to do damage".

 

[Numenorean]

I don't know about eral life, but historically, people fought with two handed weapons or shields.

Even then, in Fantasy, two weapons was for some, not everyone.

So there you go, ficiton and non-fiction "support" that TWF should be inferior (or at least, less popular) than classical two handed or sword & shield

I don't think your logic is taking the difficulty factor in to play.

For example in the Hundred Years War and later some knights would dual wield a sword/mace combo, sword/horseman's flail combo, or a sword/han axe combo.

Two handed weapons were used in limited circumstances: Saxon Huscairls wielding long two handed axes over the shield wall, german landsknecht mercenaries using two handed flamberges against horseman, etc.

Of course the Samurai used two handed swords, the katana .. but actually the Katana was a very light hand-and a half weapon. When analyzing D&D weapons I don't think its best to use eastern weapons as a standard ... because the vast bulk of weapons and armor in D&D (core) come from europe, middle east, and western asia. Thats why weapons like the Katana are sort of a fluke in the D&D system.

Do you know what 10 european knights from the 12th century would do to 10 samurai from the 12th century? .. or even 10 of Saladin's Saracens would do to them?

The Samurai are cool, but outside of their armor/weapon environment they would get destroyed.

I'm drifting off topic, my bad.

 

[Storyteller01]

There were also more two handed axes used than two handed swords and even two handed axes were relatively rare. Two handed axes are easier and more versatile to use than two handed swords because of the length of the handle. You can choke up during close in fighting.

katyana's tend to be the exception, but few could afford them.

Axes in Europe also gave the option of double-weapon use due to the handle length. This was especially evident in close quarters combat. The blade would be raked across a target (in a slicing rather tan chopping motion), and the handle end (it may even have been capped with some metal) could be used to club or stun a target.

 

[Nightfall]

Personally if I want to make the bad ass two weapon fighter, I'd go as follows:

Fighter 5/Dervish 10/Tempest 5.

Now you see what two weapon fighting can REALLY do. (Especially with SCIMITARS! )

 

[Numenorean]

I'm curious where can you find the Dervish prc? Actually whats a good place to find some middle eastern-influenced PrCs?

I could see putting them in a FR or Greyhawk campaign.