What would it take to make 2-handed weapons respectable?

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Aug 24, 2001 11:25 am

D&D requires higher Strength for using two-handers, but gives no extra benefits. Quite the contrary, actually, since if you dual-wield you'll get the Strength bonus one extra time.

A Proficient level 1 Fighter with Strength 18/100 wielding a two-handed sword will deal 1d10 + 6 damage per round (assuming he always hits), for an average of 11.5. If he'd dual-wield two longswords (decreasing his chances to hit), that would be 1d8 + 6 + 1d8 + 6, for an average of 21 per round. Almost double!

Some mitigating circumstances apply:

Dual-wielding carries a significant THAC0 penalty (as it should). This is mostly off-set by specializing in Two-Weapon style, but that will never get you the increased speed and criticals of Two-Handed Weapon style specialization.

Higher level Fighters get more attacks, which builds up the two-hander's average slightly faster than the dual-wield average (still only one attack with the off-hand). Specialization (and ToB Grand Mastery, if I understand correctly) add both attacks and damage, which (very) slightly favors the two-hander.

Doltan · Post by **Doltan** » Fri Aug 24, 2001 12:53 pm

Why do the weapons in the game even need to be balanced? Taken to the logical conclusion which seems to be underlying this thread, if you insist that 2-handed swords should be balanced with 1-handed dual-wielding, then should dual wielding daggers, using slings, or a club and a shield be just as powerful as well? If the reason for balancing weapon potency is to encourage people to use different types of weapons, shouldn't we see daggers that confer magic resistance and halberds that give extra attacks?

It seems to me that the people here are making a good point: 2-handed swords are exactly as powerful as they should be (based on a historical argument, which of course neglects magic).

UserUnfriendly · Post by **UserUnfriendly** » Fri Aug 24, 2001 11:05 pm

What ever happened to shield bash? Highly unchivarous, but lets face it, if I gave Korgan the crom feyr and harmonium sheld, at certain points, when the foe is close enough and weapons are locked so a proper right handed swing is not good, you bet he'd bash the foe using his shield! This is a devistating tactic in duels, timed properly it can knock someone off his feet! I want shield bash!

UserUnfriendly · Post by **UserUnfriendly** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 12:01 am

Sorry, it looks off topic, but I was pointing out that with shildbash, a fighter using a one handed weapon and shield is actually a dual wield, one that is not considered a dual wield, because a shiedl can serve as a weapon too. Besides, even in defense only one uses a shield for defense by angling the shield to ride into the attacks, so why isn't this considered for gaming purposes as dual wield? It should have the same penalties, and I guess it does because you need to add points to sword and shield style to get the best out of it.

So in a way, the proficinecies for the style of combat actually make a lot of sense. sword and shield gets you bonus in ac, two handed gives you bonus in attack, and single weapon gives you bonus in ac aswell, because you're using what ever single weapon to parry enemy blows. Two handed means you're training to better guide your two handed weapon to critical attack strikes.

ReignsOfPower · Post by **ReignsOfPower** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 1:40 am

IMO, Who cares man! Its a blardy game for christ sakes! If you wanted to test the 'Respectability' of a Two handed weapon vs. a Single handed weapon, go buy one and test it on yourself, see which hurts more.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: ReignsOfPower ]

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 11:24 am

Good Suggestion Reigns.

Well, heres how it goes. My friends and I have built a number of swords that are padded and thus hurt less. We haven't gotten around to making 2 handed swords because we can find a way to make them sturdy enough and still not break bones.

But we found that sword and sheild makes the battle easier, and for rookie fighters its preferable. Using one sword only lets you get more power into it, letting you bash down your opponents defense. One sword is good for medium level fighters. Now I;ve been experimenting with two weapons for some time now, and have come to a conclusion.
You can NOT use two longswords together because it is VERY ungainly and your attack and defence is uncoordinated. However, if you use a smaller weapon in your off hand ( I use a hatchet) everything seems to even out because the hatchet in my case serves almost like a sheild. It takes a lot of practice however.
What hurts more you ask? Definately two handers

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 2:02 pm

I did some live action RPing a while back, and dual-wielding served me perfectly. The idea against people wielding only one weapon is that you use one of yours to immobilize theirs (or at least keep it occupied), while you use the other to bash them over whatever body part is allowed.

I'm pretty much convinced that, if kicking and shield bashing are not allowed (let's hope not in LARP!), dual-wielding is the way to go.

Izgoth · Post by **Izgoth** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 2:39 pm

Yeah. In reality dual-wielding would be extremely hard. I can't even think of using 2 weapons. It would confuse me and it would effectively disable both of my weapons or then I would find myself using my primary hand only.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 5:25 pm

The main reason dual-wielding seems so hard is because it is unfamiliar. Most people aren't used to using their off-hand, both in terms of manual dexterity and mental coordination. This improves very rapidly with a bit of practice.

Hiding behind a shield is very intuitive, and bashing others over the head with a long thingy comes pretty natural to most people.

Silvanerian · Post by **Silvanerian** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 5:55 am

Going back to the real topic, I think the best way to balance everything out (and therefore making two-handers more preferable) is to have te weapons deal out the damage they do according to the "rules". In 2.ed AD&D a twohanded sword dealt out 1d10 to mediumsized and smaller creatures (human being medium, orge being large) and 3d6 to larger creatures.
Now, I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think that for instance a small sword would do less damage to larger creatures.

-Silvanerian

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 7:12 am

@ Silvanerian: That's right, although the two-handed sword is really the King of Large Beast Slaying. The difference is less in most weapons.

Silvanerian · Post by **Silvanerian** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 8:42 am

@Xyx: Right, that was my point. Making the twohander more preferable battling the dragons and such.
I wonder though, if it was too hard to implement in the game. I mean there have been numerous bugs with the weapons that have for instance better damage against undead.
Would it have been too hard to implement it in the game? - I suppose you practically have to make every weapon have an additional damage value.

-Silvanerian

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 9:06 am

Originally posted by Xyx:
The main reason dual-wielding seems so hard is because it is unfamiliar. Most people aren't used to using their off-hand, both in terms of manual dexterity and mental coordination. This improves very rapidly with a bit of practice.

Yaeh try swing to sticks at a tree it is hard ive tryed it

two · Post by **two** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 9:21 am

Thanks for the great comment, I had forgotten about the increased damage vs. large creatures thing... Yes that would help, 3d6 vs. Demons/dragons, etc. Even makes sense! Bonus.

Two quick points:

1) BGII is a game, and good games are well-balanced. Balanced across races, classes, enemy power, character equipment, etc. Unbalanced games are not fun; too easy, too hard, or full of things that nobody ever uses (like the BeastMaster class). Overall, BGII is well-balanced for being such a complicated game. The classes are balanced with only a few very powerful/very weak examples. The enemies can and should be more difficult but it's OK, it's not a total cake-walk. That's why I wanted 2-handed weapons made stronger, or dual-wield made weaker. Balance makes for a better game.

2) That historical crap just cracks me up. Bringing up history gets you nowhere when talking about AD&D, I mean c'mon, magic is so plentiful you can die/get resurrected 10 times a day! Maybe that +1 2-handed sword has an enchantment that makes it feel like it weighs 10 pounds, turns/changes direction like its mass was 10 pounds, but when it hits its mass feel like (to the baddie) 100 pounds. Hey, it's magic, anything is possible! Maybe it's normal for magic weapons to reduce fatigue, so that you can actually swing them all day if you feel like it. Hey, it's magic. It doesn't matter if 2-handed swords (historicaly) were only used once by a one-eyed butcher in Pakistan during the Italian Renaissance when defending his family against a 3-legged mad cow; the fact is they ARE in BGII and I was questioning if the way they were implemented is balanced. I still maintain, no.

[ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: two ]

Kaddish@Work · Post by **Kaddish@Work** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 12:12 pm

LMAO, that's funny as hell.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 2:45 am

2) That historical crap just cracks me up.

Without "that historical crap", the AD&D designers would have no material to base their ideas on. No 2-handed swords for you sonny. No full plate or codes of chivalry, mate.

We're all still grounded in a world of reality, no matter how hard you try and escape from it.

How would anyone know if a 2-handed sword did more damage to a mounted knight? Sure, its a game, but I still don't want my "pixie poker" doing quadruple damage to a dragon, that's what 2-handed swords and polearms are for. Even in *fantasy* I doubt anyone would want to get too close and personal with a dragon.

two · Post by **two** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 5:47 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
Without "that historical crap", the AD&D designers would have no material to base their ideas on. No 2-handed swords for you sonny. No full plate or codes of chivalry, mate.

We're all still grounded in a world of reality, no matter how hard you try and escape from it.

How would anyone know if a 2-handed sword did more damage to a mounted knight? Sure, its a game, but I still don't want my "pixie poker" doing quadruple damage to a dragon, that's what 2-handed swords and polearms are for. Even in *fantasy* I doubt anyone would want to get too close and personal with a dragon.

Nope. BGII is a game, AD&D is a game, and if they overlap "reality," historical or not, it is for convenience sake.

Yes of course, the concept of wearing armor and using a sword is "historical." Casting Web or "Magic Missle" is not "historical." Most of the weapons in BGII are "historical" except those that aren't. Most of the monsters are thoroughly unhistorical, except those that are.

The point is AD&D is not at all consistent in how it uses "historical" equipment, "magic," armor. Or how it uses "common sense" variously defined. Why couldn't a "pixie poker" kill a dragon? Hell, something idiotic called "Magic Missle" can kill one.

Bringing up "historical" facts when talking about AD&D, in order to support or refute a given argument, is like discussing half-nelson's when confronted with the soap opera that is the World Wrestling Foundation (WWF). Yes, the WWF is "based" on wrestling, in that they play around in a ring-type thing, and sometimes have "holds" that resemble something you might see in the Olympics, but clearly it's more fantasy than not. And to argue that something isnt' "fair" or that "folding chairs were not used historically during Roman wrestling competitions" is honestly to miss the point.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 6:06 am

Originally posted by two:
Nope. BGII is a game, AD&D is a game, and if they overlap "reality," historical or not, it is for convenience sake.

I never said they weren't games. But you admit they overlap with reality. Thanks. What else is history if not reality? Convenience is as good a reason as any.

Originally posted by two:
Most of the weapons in BGII are "historical" except those that aren't. Most of the monsters are thoroughly unhistorical, except those that are.

Most? Don't you mean all? Besides the obviously unreal magical effects (I can distinguish reality from fantasy), the weapons *are* historical. Monsters, um, don't exist. Except the ones under my bed.

Originally posted by two:
The point is AD&D is not at all consistent in how it uses "historical" equipment, "magic," armor. Or how it uses "common sense" variously defined. Why couldn't a "pixie poker" kill a dragon? Hell, something idiotic called "Magic Missle" can kill one.

Consistency is what people are attempting to discuss here (emphasis on discussion, not just outright dismissal of others' pertinent views). Point being that even the "idiotic" (I never said anything that wasn't historical was idiotic) magic missile is bound by consistent *rules*. A magic missile, bound by its rules, cannot kill a Dragon unless an awful lot of other (rule based) events have proceeded the magic missile attack.

Won't even dignify the WWF comments with a response.

Nope? No, YES.

Why must you go too far? If *several* people in this thread have brought up historical issues, what gives you the authority to disclaim it as crap?

two · Post by **two** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 6:41 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy:

...snipped...Why must you go too far? If *several* people in this thread have brought up historical issues, what gives you the authority to disclaim it as crap?

They can talk about history all they want, it's even interesting! Some of the time...

But what I specifically called "historical crap" was the application of historical arguments, or historical "common sense" (like, 2-handed swords were, in the past, rare, heavy, awkward, etc. so they should be that way in BGII too) to what is a 95% "fantasy" game. Fantasy not just in its overall genre conception, but how certain elements of the past are appropriated and used in fantastic ways.

This is where it gets totally silly; you know the scene, some guy sitting around the table beating his hand on his palm saying "If he's wearing full plate he can't jump over a ditch! He can't jump over a ditch!" while his cleric friend is busy casting raise dead (no comment) and the party thief is in the ethereal plane due to a magic belt, and the bard is invisible and doing flips. I mean -- c'mon. If you accept a mage's skull traps, you have to accept jumping a ditch with full plate. THAT is the meaning of consistency. It does not matter a bit that, in the past, full-plate has somewhat restricted one's movements. This is a magic realm, dude. Even the metal acts differently there. It ain't as heavy or sumthin.

Regarding monsters: I think black bears are "realistic" in BGII to some degree. Wild dogs? Maybe. Not liches though. I don't think.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 6:56 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by two:

But what I specifically called "historical crap" was the application of historical arguments, or historical "common sense" (like, 2-handed swords were, in the past, rare, heavy, awkward, etc. so they should be that way in BGII too) to what is a 95% "fantasy" game. [QUOTE]

You're taking everything out of context and applying it to a completely different argument.

I don't know what game you're playing but my characters can't jump over ditches. If I put full plate on a weakling, they can barely walk. If I give 2 maces to my cleric who is proficient with staffs, he can't hit squat with them. Nobody ever said the game wasn't 95% fantasy - you're p*ssing against the wind, preaching to the converted and having a daft argument with yourself (beaten yourself yet?). What about the other 5% anyway (I fear it is considerably larger than that). Y'know, the 5% where you walk, talk and fight your way through the game using swords, armour and other fantasy "crap".

"It ain't as heavy or sumthin".

- A well phrased argument, I bow to your undeniable logic.

"If you accept a mage's skull traps, you have to accept jumping a ditch with full plate. THAT is the meaning of consistency."

- Nope. That is completely inconsistent. Funnily enough, I don't have a problem with the skull trap. That's magic. Leaping a ditch in full plate, unless assisted by a strength or levitation spell, or a horse, that's impossible (unless its *really light* +3 "full plate of the flying phaeries" or whatever).

I don't consider black bears and dogs "monsters". Must be tough for you when you go for a walk in the park (West Highland Terrier waddles past - "Look out! Monster!").