Oversized weapons

[DanMcS]

A medium character needs two hands to wield a large weapon. There was a feat in Sword and Fist that let you use a two-handed weapon one-handed.

What if weapons were just rated by the size and strength needed to use them in one hand? Call a large sword M20. To wield it in one hand, you need a strength of 20 if you are medium.

If you are large, the requirement drops 5; 5 points represents an approximate doubling of strength. Likewise if you use it two-handed. So an ogre only needs a strength of 15 to wield a large sword in one hand, and anyone using it two-handed needs a strength of only 15.

Then, if you have a str 20, you can use that greatsword one-handed.

Similarly with a lance, call it M18; when you're on the horse, you're effectively a large creature, and need only a 13 to wield it one-handed.

For every point you miss the requirement by, take a -1 penalty to attack and damage.

A huge sword (twohanded for an ogre) would be something like M30; for a medium character to use it in one hand he would need a strength of 30, an ogre is large, so L25, he can use it as L20 if he's going two-handed.

 

[Terath Ninir]

I think TSR and then WotC have avoided this because they think it increases complexity too much. However, it does lead to some crazy situations. Almost all of my characters use great axes as their melee weapons. I never use shields, anyway (unless I'm playing a dwarven cleric), so I might as well have a two-handed weapon. And why not get the biggest damage die? It doesn't matter that my character has a Str of 10; that's all the more reason to maximize my chances of getting high damage!

Thus, I like your idea. *Especially* your point on the lance! That is an elegant way of dealing with it.

I might tinker with the exact details, but so far, just kicking the math around in my head, your idea looks pretty good as-is. I might change the mechanics of the penalty you face if you use too heavy a weapon, but that would be a flavour thing, mostly. I'd probably have it be something like a reduction in the Strength bonus.

All in all, I'd say this is an excellent idea!

 

[DanMcS]

Danka.

Weapon finesse: you may apply weapon finesse to any weapon with which you beat the strength needed by by 5 or 8 or something.

Medium slashing and blunt weapons are typically M10. Piercing are M8. A rapier is light and balanced towards the hilt, call it M7. Hand-and-a-half weapons like a bastard sword or a dwarven waraxe should be M17.

Small weapons decrease the requirement to M5 or M3 (for piercing).

Large weapons are typically M20, M18 for piercing. Huge weapons are M30 or so.

Feat: oversized weapon training. Your strength is considered 4 points higher for purposes of wielding weapons. This would replace the exotic weapon proficiency needed for hand-and-a-half weapons, you just need to be strong enough or have the bonus feat.

 

[Tetsubo]

I like this idea. My only concern is having to rate every weapon in the game with a Strength stat. That seems like a lot of work. And I'm fairly lazy. Good idea though.

 

[Fieari]

The SRD gives weights for each weapon. Perhaps this score could be linked to the weight? Two-handed weapons seem to be 8lbs and over.

 

[Tetsubo]

The SRD gives weights for each weapon. Perhaps this score could be linked to the weight? Two-handed weapons seem to be 8lbs and over.

Except the SRD weights are insane. They are even close to what the weapons actually weigh. D&d has NEVER gotten a weapon weigh correct. In every edition they have been about twice as heavy as they should be. No two-handed sword ever weighed what the SRD lists it at...

Sorry. Weapon weights are just my pet peeve with the D&D game.

 

[Dogbrain]

I like this idea. My only concern is having to rate every weapon in the game with a Strength stat. That seems like a lot of work. And I'm fairly lazy. Good idea though.

Do what I do: Implement as needed.

Alternatively, do what I'm doing: Design a world with a very small selection of weapons. Low-tech really simplifies the choices.

 

[Galethorn]

Except the SRD weights are insane. They are even close to what the weapons actually weigh. D&d has NEVER gotten a weapon weigh correct. In every edition they have been about twice as heavy as they should be. No two-handed sword ever weighed what the SRD lists it at...

Sorry. Weapon weights are just my pet peeve with the D&D game.

I thought the same thing, and, despite the note about the weight including the scabbard, they were too heavy...but then I noticed that they partially fixed several of them when they moved to 3.5e...

The greatsword is now 8 pounds...even without a scabbard, that's quite reasonable for the biggest of the big two-handed swords...

The bastard sword now 'only' weighs 5 pounds (still about a pound too much, even with the scabbard)...

The greataxe weighs 12 pounds now...which is about four pounds too much, unless you have about 20 strength...

So, they're still off, even if you include scabbards, but they're getting close...maybe by 4th edition we'll have 2.5 pound longswords.

 

[robberbaron]

2.5 pound longswords?
I have one (well, it is about the right length, anyway) and I am sure it weighs more than that.

Don't get confused between "modern" medieval weapons made from spring steel and "medieval" medeival weapons made from different steels altogether.

Part of the effect of swords was the weight to get "through" armour and do damage. Without the weight they would have to be incredibly sharp to do the same job and would need re-sharpening so often that the wielder would change to an axe, hammer or pick.

 

[CombatWombat51]

Let's not have Dan's interesting idea degrade into another flavor of D&D vs. real old stuff.