Two handed swords

[ArcaneBoozery]

In all fantasy/medieval type RPGs, the player usually has a choice between using a sword and shield combination, a one handed sword by itself (usually the least effective style), and a two handed sword for his sword oriented melee characters. In AD&D, the most popular type of one handed sword is called the longsword, and in most systems, the two handed sword is called something like greatsword or flamberge, and is typically a huge thing, close in length to a man's height, and is worn hanging from his back.

 

This is really not realistic. Historically, greatswords/flamberges were a late comer, appearing in very late middle ages and renaissanse to counter the prevalent pikemen formations of those times. These swords were not meant to be used in sword fighting or duels, as they were too large and heavy to use against an opposing sword fighter. Instead, they were meant to hack off the sharp ends off pikes, and possibly hack away at gunpoweder infantry while those were reloading. They were a very specialized weapon, so it's kinda silly to see them being used by adventurers in RPGs as an all-purpose sword. On top of that, they were never hung from the back, as it is physically impossible to remove a weapon of that length from the scabbard on one's back (the arm won't go that far, there are some youtube videos on this). Instead, they were simply carried over the shoulder, like a spear.

 

Meanwhile, the longsword that AD&D portrays as a one handed weapon was actually a hybrid weapon, that could be wielded in one hand with a shield, but could also be very effectively wielded in two hands. In fact, longswords are pretty famous as two handed weapons, because during the late middle ages, there were schools of sword fighting in Germany and Italy that specialized in longswords and developed very extensive and beautiful styles of fencing with them. Here is a great video displaying two handed longsword fighting:

 

 

Anyway, I guess it's not a huge thing or anything, but given the developers' track record of fighting cliches and established approaches, I would love it if PE allowed longswords worn at the hip to be the two handed sword of choice instead of the typical greatsword, which would not only be more realistic and historically accurate, but also possibly lead to more finesse oriented two handed styles as opposed to the typical "swing slower but hit harder" approach.

[Monte Carlo]

Why did nobody call the police? Two guys waving big swords about in a park?

[Karranthain]

Why did nobody call the police? Two guys waving big swords about in a park?

 

It was filmed by a time traveller.

[Nonek]

This was implemented in NWN2 as I remember, if using a longsword without a shield you'd automatically wield it two handed, and gain a damage bonus for doing so.

 

Why did nobody call the police? Two guys waving big swords about in a park?

 

I'm told it happens all the time at night on Hampstead Heath, usually George Michael's involved in some fashion.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Nonek

[UncleBourbon]

Sounds like the longsword you're describing ArcaneBoozery, is the D&D Bastard sword - machanically between a longsword and a great sword, it can be wielded in either one hand or two, the wielder's strength playing a big part into which is more effective. It it usually my weapon of choice because of the flexability, but I trust Obsidian to make logical, setting based weaponry.

[Keldorn]

Although I am not very knowledgeable about medieval swords, are the swords in the movie not bastard swords instead of longswords? They look somewhat large - especially their grip. As far as I know, many longswords also have a grip that is only suitable for one hand, isn't that so? That means a longsword sized for both one-handed wielding and two-handed wielding should be a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half-sword)..

[HumanFlesh+5]

What about single weapon fighting style. It kind of was there in BGII but way too weak. i really like one weapon fighting style boni for rogue ... i don't think a dual wielding rogue is that realistic. even though D&D seems to like them.

[Karranthain]

What about single weapon fighting style. It kind of was there in BGII but way too weak. i really like one weapon fighting style boni for rogue ... i don't think a dual wielding rogue is that realistic. even though D&D seems to like them.

 

I agree, it'd be great to have single weapon fighting style in the game.

[UncleBourbon]

What about single weapon fighting style. It kind of was there in BGII but way too weak. i really like one weapon fighting style boni for rogue ... i don't think a dual wielding rogue is that realistic. even though D&D seems to like them.

 

In tabletop D&D - at least, in 3.5 D&D and pathfinder - one of the major advantages to a free hand is the ability to manipulate things and attempt many combat manuevers at only half the penalty as you might wihtout a free hand. Using a nice dagger and a rogue specialised in grab can be fun in pathfinder, though it does only work if you can get in close. I'd like to see some abilities that are more effective or more likely to work in one weapon fighting.

[Keldorn]

From my understanding of swords, which is mostly based of knowledge gained from Wikipedia, combined with RPG gaming, a good list of swords to use would be:

 

- Daggers: 1H

- Long knife: 1H, L: 64-81cm of which blade: 51-68cm (for instance: size of roman swords);

- Knightly sword / Arming sword: 1H, L: 91cm of which blade: 74cm;

- Longsword / Bastard sword: 1H/2H, L: 120-150cm of which blade: 100-122cm;

- Other swords (scimitars, katanas, rapiers and the like)

 

Interestingly enough, the knightly sword is also refered to as the short sword - something a fighter/paladin would never use in D&D gaming; even though it is said in Wikipedia the short sword was the normal single-handed sword during Elizabethan England (1558–1603).

 

Also, concerning two-handed swords, I read that the true two-handed sword, the "zweihänder" or "bidenhänder", was indeed used to deal with pikemen. However, many other two-handed swords, such as the Scottish claymore, were much shorter (in the range of the longsword as seen above) but still only meant for two-handed wielding. Claymores, due to their smaller size compared to the bidenhänder, were actually worn on the back. So although the OP has some good points, many a sword was used for sole two-handed wielding - not only the bidenhänder.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Keldorn

[Jasede]

Don't care about realism.

I think two-handed swords, flails, axes, mauls and so on are plain cool and satisfying to use, especially if wielding two-handed weapons applies an extra bonus derived from your strength score.

[kabaliero]

Did any1 ever meet a player who had flail or mace as a favorite weapon?

[Merlkir]

Eternity forums are probably the first gaming forums where I've seen real longsword videos being posted, and threads about realistic armour and stuff. (well, except for the Taleworlds forums for Mount and Blade, there it's kind of mandatory knowledge)

 

Good job!

[Gorgon]

While were at it, why is there never a spear+shield option. The tradition is to get caught up in weapon type. Is it one or two handed, if it's two handed it takes up both hands. That doesn't leave any space for a Hoplite type situation.

[Heresiarch]

Well, I wouldn't say a zweihander is only good for chopping off pikes. You can also swing it around wildly and scare people away.

 

There are long two-handed swords, which can be used in a fight effectively like nodachi or claymore. Of course, they are neither as long nor as heavy. But it seems that huge weapons seem to be a must in fantasy games. I still remember DAO: those swords must have weighed around 8 kilos and those were just single handers.

 

I would really like a realistic approach to fighting: sword is good, an off-hand for parrying is better, unless you have mad skills at fencing and legwork. A shield might not take you a long way in the firearms era though. Pikes and polearms should be unwieldy and unusable in CQC. Firearms take forever to reload. Spiked weapons and axes are prone to lodging in armor and bones. Mace and flail strikes are too heavy to be parried repeatedly...

 

But then again we're talking about an isometric game where combat is most likely represented by small figures flailing weapons at each other. So realism would not work here anyways.

[Azure79]

I would like to see weapons wielded somewhat realistically in the context of the fantasy setting, with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

 

If I was a two handed weapon warrior, I think I'd be at a disadvantage when fighting someone with a faster, more maneuverable weapon. I wouldn't go in and parry/block/avoid each blow that was dealt, I'd probably just wind up and start swinging, using distance and the greater momentum of the bigger sword to accelerate subsequent swings to my advantage. The weapon would create deadly arcs roughly 180 degrees in front of me, so anything caught in the area would suffer damage. It would also be hardly to flank due to the range of the weapon. It would be good against multiple, lightly armored opponents.

 

For one handers with shields, I would imagine playing defensively, hiding my movements behind the shield for the perfect moment to strike. I would try to use to the shield to smash or disorient the opponent and follow up with a critical hit to a sensitive area. This would be better at engaging tougher enemies and provide better defense against archers, compared to the two-handed style.

 

I don't have any real sword knowledge, but that's what is in my head.

[Merlkir]

While were at it, why is there never a spear+shield option. The tradition is to get caught up in weapon type. Is it one or two handed, if it's two handed it takes up both hands. That doesn't leave any space for a Hoplite type situation.

 

The way for instance MnB handles it - some weapons can be be 1 or 2 handed, so depending on how you're using the weapon, different skills apply.

[Jasede]

You guys should try Dark Souls; more spears and maces and spears + shield style than you can shake a stick at. Plus, you can wield every weapon in two hands if you so please, from a lowly dagger to a gigantic club, some of course working better in one style than in the other, others able to function equally well in both.

[UncleBourbon]

Did any1 ever meet a player who had flail or mace as a favorite weapon?

 

Maces and flails are interesting weapons in terms of niche - in history, iirc, the flail was mostly for getting around/above shields in close combat, and the mace was for punishing, brutal blows despite not piercing armor. However, in a lot of games those aspects are hard to translate, thus the weapons end up as flavor choices. I've played a flail cleric and mace rogue before, more for roleplaying purpose than anything else. Maces in some iterations of D&D can benefit from weapon finesse (or equivalent). Also, there are a few games that allow one-hand spear wielding, and several D&D rule sets, and derivatives, have a "half-spear" or something akin to it, which is generally a spear that is one damage step down, but usable in one hand.

The monkey grip feat is also an example of a feat that helps - though in homebrew games we usually reasoned that if it is a spear of your size category, you could reasonably wield it one handedly - basically considering it the spear form of a bastard sword, with the cavaet that to dual wield you needed monkey grip. Spear and shield was a classic build - no wonder it was popular throughout history. In game, however, the dps is usually inferior to other weapon choices - luckily, most of the campaigns I played appreciate role playing, which made it sensible.

[kabaliero]

Did any1 ever meet a player who had flail or mace as a favorite weapon?

 

Maces and flails are interesting weapons in terms of niche - in history, iirc, the flail was mostly for getting around/above shields in close combat, and the mace was for punishing, brutal blows despite not piercing armor. However, in a lot of games those aspects are hard to translate, thus the weapons end up as flavor choices. I've played a flail cleric and mace rogue before, more for roleplaying purpose than anything else. Maces in some iterations of D&D can benefit from weapon finesse (or equivalent). Also, there are a few games that allow one-hand spear wielding, and several D&D rule sets, and derivatives, have a "half-spear" or something akin to it, which is generally a spear that is one damage step down, but usable in one hand.

The monkey grip feat is also an example of a feat that helps - though in homebrew games we usually reasoned that if it is a spear of your size category, you could reasonably wield it one handedly - basically considering it the spear form of a bastard sword, with the cavaet that to dual wield you needed monkey grip. Spear and shield was a classic build - no wonder it was popular throughout history. In game, however, the dps is usually inferior to other weapon choices - luckily, most of the campaigns I played appreciate role playing, which made it sensible.

i... was uh.. sort of, just kiddin' but ah.. okay.. thanks for sharing!

[Dream]

This is what's wrong with wanting everything to be realistic and functional. If BG2's designer's listened to people like this there'd have been no Carsomyr.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

[Merlkir]

There might have been a Carsomyr, which looks like you could hold it without impaling your hand. Which is even cooler. Duuuuuude.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

This is what's wrong with wanting everything to be realistic and functional. If BG2's designer's listened to people like this there'd have been no Carsomyr.

 

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/RuleOfCool

 

Yes, but I always find realism kind of satisfying and absurdity kind of annoying when I see it, even in a Fantasy RPG. A touch of realism lends a feeling of authenticity to everything, whereas a hero wielding a JRPG-style sword that is as big as his entire body just provokes amusement or eye-rolling.

 

That doesn't mean realism is always the best option. If it were, I suppose our adventuring career might amount to getting stabbed by the first enemy we encounter, getting taken out of the fight by the wound and dying of an infection a few days later or some such. Still, I'm kind of hoping that outside of the blatant fantasy aspects, the majority of the game will have a realistic feel to it.

[cdx]

I can see the OP point. Attacking Dragons, Beholders, Liches, Animated Skeletons, Demons, etc with a two handed sword that is too long for classic swordplay feels a bit unrealistic.

[Greensleeve]

I can see the OP point. Attacking Dragons, Beholders, Liches, Animated Skeletons, Demons, etc with a two handed sword that is too long for classic swordplay feels a bit unrealistic.

 

Yeah, you just did not read any of the thread at all, did you? Such as, oh I don't know, the post right above yours.