Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[Storyteller01]

There was on option in an OGL book (Quintessential Psychic Warrior, I think) that allowed you to 'extend' your reach with a double weapon.

Your basically holding the weapon as close to an edge as possible, and swinging with the free end. It accrued a -4 to hit (improvised weapon use) but gives you a reach weapon for that round. I believe you didn't gain the damage bonus for using the weapon two handed though.

 

[Timeron Malachi]

From sparring with bokken (wooden swords) and staffs, and also doing full-speed with boffer swords, I've found that there isn't really any overiding style that trumps all.

When two people square up with longswords or bastard swords, it just comes down to reaction and parrying ability. The way the fighting was done between Tom Cruise and some of his sparring partners in The Last Samurai is sort of what I mean. Once I started using upswinging parries into downswinging counters, I found myself winning 50% more often.

If two people are using two weapons each, personal reach and coordinatedness come into play: be it two daggers, two shortswords, or two longswords. If you just jump in dervish-style, you might win for luck, but the best thing to do is parry with one sword, and counter with the other. Somewhat like fencers with rapier-and-dagger.

The best things to fight with are spears and pole-arms, though...with a spear, you might think that your speed is going to be much less, but you can really crank that thing around. Either swinging it like a staff or making quick stabbing motions.

There was a very fun instance that I was sparring with some boppers, and I was using two ball-and-chains. One was approximately ten feet long, the other about five. I just swung the long-ball around and made testing swings and stuff, but stayed defensive. My friend finally jumped forward, got my flail wrapped around his sword, and came in to bull rush me down, and I just cranked the other one right up...those were the least safe bopper weapons I think we ever used, and then we decided they weren't really fair.

 

[Gort]

In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.

Because that means something.

 

[Coredump]

I catches my attention whenever the SCA is mentioned. While there is a tremendous amount of useful experience to pull from, it is not 100% transferable. Historically, I have seen lots of mis-statements made, and some bad impressions given. So, I may have gotten overly sensitive.

In real one on one melee combat, two weapon fighting is vastly superior to either a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield. In the SCA, many of the best fighters fight two weapon and they often win.

This is technically true, but a misleading statement. In the SCA, there a few very good TWF fighters, but the vast majority of top level fighters are sword and shield. From my experience , this holds true regardless of which kingdom or area of the country. There are a rare few that are very good and use Pole, and only a couple that use Greatsword. But that is largely due to the rules that we use, and is *not* directly transferable to the usefulness of the weapon.

But the upshot is that the number of top TWF is still dwarfed by the number of S&B fighters.

Fighting with a two handed weapon (other than a polearm) has virtually no advantages. But in DND, it is often considered the best technique. Go figure.

Again, fighting with a greatsword in *SCA* has little advantages. But that is because of the rules used. You can't hit at the ankles, you can't 'power through' their shield, or sword, the opponents weapons and shields are 'invulnerable'.... All of these are SCA rules that make 2HF less effective that it could be.
Plus, hitting someone in the leg with a shortsword, does the same as hitting them with a great weapon.... again, rules, not reality.

Change the rules, so that greatsword can hit below the knee, and that an unimpeded blow to the leg (even the calf) is considered an incapaciting blow (ie. a kill) and you will see how 'advantagous' the 2 handed sword can be. (And, according to the Wisby dig, more historically accurate.)

 

[Coredump]

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 do not doubt your experience, but what caused that?

usually, in boffer fighting, the polearms are fairly light, the swords can fairly easily deflect them, you are not allowed to 'power through' someones defense, it is impossible to break thier weapon/shield, and you accept a fairly light shot as a kill. (maybe not 'touch' light, but still light).
All of these put the 2HF at a disadvantage. If I can swing a greatsword hard (but still under control), you will not be able to block it with one sword. You will still get hit.

The TWFs, at first, nearly always won because the THF, given his lesser flexibility, depends more on his footwork.

But, I assert, that is because the rules took away his 'normal' flexibility. His options "hit harder" "break thier weapon/shield", etc are not allowed Try it again, but the sword can't be used to block the great weapon, see how that goes....

 

[Coredump]

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

In melee/war, sure. But check out the tournaments. There it was very common for 2 handed swords, because it was one-on-one. Also, in war, the emphasis was on defense, not offense. In DnD, we don't care about taking damage, because it doesn't hurt, and we can get easily healed.

1) in group/war fighting. DnD is more about 1-1 fighting.
2) *started* as a peasant weapon. But used extensively by highly trained military units.
3) Huh? Where? a single handed sword, no shield, would only be used as a last resort. (or during the 'rapier' years)
4) *and* in 1-1 fighting, and tournament, etc. *and* in war but not in formation. *very* common form.
5) Mostly only 'late period' in 1-1 dueling scenarios.

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

YOu need to do more research, they were used in tournament, and by some fighting units.

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.

Are you assuming this? Or are you using SCA as a justification? I don't know how they use greatswords where you are from, but every kingdom/war I have been in, I could stand next to a greatsword fighter ally and not be worried. A greatsword is *not* used like an out of control baseball bat

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.

HUH!!??!! Granted, due to the SCA rules, there is little reason to use the GS compared to a polearm. But your claims are still pretty far off the mark. They are no 'clumsier' etc than a polearm, and those are pretty useful.

Compare it to tennis.

Lets think about that. Tennis: you are weilding a very light 'weapon', trying to intercept an even lighter object, and the amount of force you deliver is inconsequencial. Hmmm.. sounds like a *very* different situation. How about chopping down a tree? Or chopping wood? Or using a bayonet? or anything where you are using a heavier object, and force matters. (Heck, even hitting a baseball, try it one handed sometime. Should be easier, afterall, you should be so much faster....)

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.

Yes, and the *same* was done with greatswords. It was called 'half-swording' and allowed you to get very powerful attacks when in close.

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.

I am sorry, but that is ridiculous. Try hitting someone with a baseball bat one handed, not try it two handed. Which is 'faster'?

 

[Coredump]

Examples made using the SCA and boffer fighting forget two very important point:

Strength doesn't matter.

Game rules trump reality.

This, I feel, is the main point TheEvil is making. And I totally agree. Nothing I say below takes anything away from this. But there are a few corrections needed.

The SCA... But once you actually hit the armor, the angle of the hit and to a degree the strength of the hit don't really matter that much.

truish. If the angle is poor, it will be considered a 'glance' and not counted. Or it may just not feel 'right', and not counted.

A hit is a hit, even if it would have been with the flat of the 'blade'

A hit with the 'flat' is *not* considered good, but it is sometimes hard to know when that happens.

and wouldn't have gotten through the armor even if it wasn't.

Sorta... the SCA assumes all have mail, and there is a power level that is considered 'good enough' to get through the presumed armor. Wearing cloth or plate does not change how you need to get hit, and I have no real idea if the 'good' level would actuall get through mail or not.

You also can't make contact with your opponent. No grabbing a pole arm shaft, no kicking, no grappling a smaller foe in close combat.

Mostly true. You can grab the non-blade of a weapon (shaft, pommel, etc.) and you can use your shield/weapon to move their shield/weapon, or to push them through their shield/weapon, but you can't grab their arm (for example)

There are also some comments on hit location effect, but I am less familiar with those in the SCA.

hitting an arm/leg disables that limb, body/head is a kill. (if it is of 'sufficient force.')

All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that the rules for safety generally prevent a realistic simulation of relative style advantages/disadvantages in most live action fighting games.

Agreed

 

[Storyteller01]

From sparring with bokken (wooden swords) and staffs, and also doing full-speed with boffer swords, I've found that there isn't really any overiding style that trumps all.

My instructor used to say "master timing, distance, and technique; once you do you'll always win".

How you master those traits is up to you.

 

[Storyteller01]

There is something I feel we're missing here: Multiple opponents.


MAss combat relies on killing an opponents quickly. That mean's two handed weapons are the way to go. Few people have the skill or talent to use TWF in this situation (most warriors just don't live that long). Even katana's, arguably the lights and most effective two handed weapon (because of it's damage and speed IRL) were usually used two handed, as evidenced (is that a word?) by a battleground dig. 80% of the kills were through the clavical. One, this is a stadard target for a two handed overhead strike. Second, striking this target is difficult with one hand, and not nearly as powerful. SUch fighters usually went for the legs and abdominal areas (massive bleeding points).

Those historical figures who made two weapons use famous were always duelists. They never battled more than a few at a time (one story has a samurai using a single sword against 30 opponents).

So, IMHO, having TWF styles break down in typical D&D combat (lots of bad guys) is realistic. Most schools, if they teach twf at all, teach it after the learn the basics. It's an advanced idea that rerquires a hellasious amount of accuracy (or that high BaB ).

 

[KarinsDad]

3) Huh? Where? a single handed sword, no shield, would only be used as a last resort. (or during the 'rapier' years)

I suggest you do more research.

Many armies were augmented by irregulars (i.e. peasants).

And, most peasants that were given a weapon were given either a polearm, or a simple single weapon like a club or dagger. They were rarely given shields or armor. The main reason for that is that armies did not have time to train peasants in combat fighting and typically did not have the money to adequately supply them. And peasants, at least in most European countries, were not allowed to own weapons, armor or shields (hence the reason work tools started becoming used as weapons). They were supplied with weapons as needed and then those weapons were collected afterwards.

YOu need to do more research, they were used in tournament, and by some fighting units.

Yes they were. But they were very rarely used in normal combat in Europe until the 16th century. And even then, they had a few specialized roles and were not used by most troops.

http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6576.html

His style of fencing was based chiefly on the thrust, recommending that the point is directed to the enemy all the time; almost completely banning the hazardous edge blows, except when fighting multiple opponents.

On the contrary, Alfieri realises the uselessness of two-handed swords for civilian duels. In his lessons he summarises the basic rules of handling the two-handed sword, starting from the simplest drills and neglecting almost completely specific aspects of single combat.
The academic exercise of Spadone is actually Alfieri?s greatest concern in his precise and methodical didactic: indeed two-handed sword fencing was regarded as old-fashioned in the middle of the 17th century, where the sword and dagger, or single rapier, were the leading weapons for duels.
Thus he explicitly states that the two-handed sword is a weapon not noble enough for duels and too bulky for the militia:

?Cosa certa, che tra tutti gli esercizi ed arti humanamente esercitate non 蠮e la pi?ellente, ne la pi?ustre, n頬a pi?le per la militia,??
[ Francesco Alfieri, Lo Spadone, Padova, 1653: ?It is sure that among all the exercises practised by human being, it(the two-handed sword) is neither the most excellent nor renowned, nor the most useful for the militia?]

Such a weapon, says Alfieri, is used in civilian life only by the night watchman or the riot units, who patrolled roads and squares. In the wars it is used to fight against pikemen or placed near the ?The banner?, as the final defence.
In fact Alfieri seems to imply that his teaching should be considered mainly a gymnastic discipline, where the two-hand sword becomes an instrument of physical culture, useful to improve the strength and skill of the body

The two handed sword had specific duties, but it was not used as a general purpose combat weapon. For one thing, it was expensive to manufacture.

All of these put the 2HF at a disadvantage. If I can swing a greatsword hard (but still under control), you will not be able to block it with one sword. You will still get hit.

Except that greatswords were historically used as thrusting weapons.

It is obvious that you do not know that much about how this weapon was actually used if you think that you swing a greatsword. You have to read what weapon masters from the 15th through 17th century wrote down concerning melee weapons.

The problem with swinging a greatsword is that if a trained opponent gets within your guard and blocks the swing near your hands with either a second weapon or a shield, he will kill you with his weapon. Hence the reason that you thrust with a greatsword. You keep the point of such a weapon facing your foe (and hence the reason greatswords and any two handed weapons like polearms should have a penalty on Attacks of Opportunity). Course, the problem with this is that you can only point it at one foe at a time, hence, the reason it the greatsword not very good as a combat weapon in real life (unlike in DND).

Granted, you can swing such a weapon, but swinging it is a tactic of last resort when fighting multiple opponents (similar to Spanish Quarterstaff fighting where you attempt to keep your opponents at bay). But if you are using it that way, then (like I said in an earlier post) it is hazardous to you allies as well as your enemies.

http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordsanddaggersterm.html

Two-handed sword - a specialized type of great sword that became popular in the 16th century. The size and weight of the weapon, made it unsuited for close formation fighting, and its use was reserved for banner defense, guarding breeches in siege warfare, and forming skirmish lines. The grip was very long in proportion to the blade, and the overall sword could be 5 1/2’ - 6’ long.

Two-handed Swords are really a classification of sword applied to Renaissance, rather than Medieval, weapons. They are the specialized forms of the later 1500-1600's, known in German as "Dopplehander" ("both-hander") or in English as "slaughterswords" (named after the German "Schlachterschwerter" -- battle swords), or in Italian as "lo spadone". In Germany and England they seem to have enjoyed a vogue for use in single-combat, but their precise military role is still in debate.