This is an offshoot of another thread .

The question came up about how to make using a two-handed weapon more appealing than dual wielding purely for the an additional attack.

What follows is a first pass at a few two-handed weapon talents. I have not had a chance to test these in game but I don't think they are overpowered.Constructive criticism is always welcome.

Two-Handed Weapon Specialist
Requirements: WS 40
Effect: Extensive training has allowed you to overcome the awkward nature of two-handed weapons. Any two-handed weapon you wield may be used to parry. You may ignore the Unbalanced trait on any two-handed weapon and any two-handed weapon with the Unwieldy trait changes to Unbalanced.

Lunging Attack (Two-Handed Weapon)
Requirements: WS 40, Two-Handed Weapon Specialist, wielding a two-handed weapon
Effect: As part of any full attack action you may make a melee attack as if your weapon has a range of 2. This attack does leave you vulnerable. Any enemy that threatens you in melee, that is not the focus of this attack, may spend a reaction to make a normal melee attack against you.

Scything Strike (Two-Handed Weapon)
Requirements: AG 45, WS 50, Two-Handed Weapon Specialist, wielding a two-handed weapon
Effect: Spinning recklessly, you make multiple attacks against any who dare draw near you. As a full attack action treat your two-handed melee weapon as if it has the Blast(2) trait centered on you. This attack makes no distinction between friend and foe. You do not attack yourself.
Due to the reckless nature of this maneuver any ranged attacks against you are made at +20 until the beginning of your next turn.

Flurry (Two-Handed Weapon)
Requirements: Two-Handed Weapon Specialist, Two Weapon Wielder (Melee), wielding a two-handed weapon
Effect: While wielding a two-handed weapon you may treat it as if you were fighting with two normal melee weapons, all normal penalties apply. The primary hand is considered to attack with the normal attack of the two-handed weapon, the damage dice from this attack is halved, ex. 2D10 becomes 1d10, 1d10 becomes 1d5 (minimum), all other modifiers and Str bonus apply to these attacks. The off-hand end of the weapon deals 1d10 + Str or 1d5+ Str, if the primary attack die is reduced to 1d5, but gains none of the special properties of the primary attack source. The off-hand attack is considered primitive only if the primary attack source is.
Some weapons designed for this type of fighting, some stave's and double ended weaponry, will not have their damage reduced when used in this manner.

Updated v:1.1

ItsUncertainWho said:

Two-Handed Specialist is nice. Nothing else to say about this one.

Lunging Attack seems useless. Melee weapons can already be used at a "range' of 2m. Perhaps you mean 3m? Instead of the built-in penalty, why not only allow this while making an All Out Attack? It makes it a bit stronger, but right now the effect seems pitifully weak.

Scything Strike is interesting. I'd suggest an Agility requirement over a WS one since you describe it as "reckless" and I would have this be another option that can only be used while making an All Out Attack (this has the reckless part built in).

Flurry is a good concept, but how about a simplified version. For most two-handed weapons, the primary attack of the weapon has its damage reduced by 4 (a flat, easy number to apply) and the secondary attack is treated as an unarmed attack (which for a space Marine is quite impressive and not Primitive). Weapons designed for this style of fighting instead have a second stat line that represents the weapon when used in this manner. When attacking with Flurry, the wielder is treated as if using two weapons, so all attacks will suffer the appropriate modifiers.

Which two handed weapons are currently unwieldy/unbalanced? In fact; what two handed weapons are there listed already?

The lunge seems useless. DW is about cinematic combat, and I'm not going to quibble with players about someone being outside melee reach but within lunge distance: Things are either close enough to melee or they're not. Additionally, reach is dictated by the size and design of the weapon, not how many hands are needed to hold it.

The blast damage move is ok. So it's basically for use against hordes, as it adds two to horde damage?

Flurry seems over-complex and bizarre. It's kinda just an excuse to add another attack.

HappyDaze said:

Range 1 would be a normal melee weapon, as it threatens an area 1m away from you. Range 2 is, on a battle mat, you plus 2 squares, or 2 meters away from you.

The Full Attack aspect does limit it's usefulness. Maybe change it to "As part of any full attack action", so it would be defaulted in to All Out Attack and charges.

HappyDaze said:

Siranui said:

Yeah, I had thought about an Ag requirement, probably Ag 45.

It's very useful against Hordes and if you are surrounded by multiple single enemies.

Siranui said:

Almost all of them are Unwieldy. The Eviscerator for example, the Sacris Claymore, etc.

HappyDaze said:

Siranui said:

I think I may have over worded.

Say you have a chain spear that does 2d10+4 tearing. The flurry would be 1d10+4+SB tearing, offhand 1d10+SB.

A primitive spear doing 1d10+SB would to 1d5+SB - primitive, offhand 1d5+SB - primitive.

The flurry basically allows for the two-handed weapon to be used as two normal one handed weapons with the TWW talent. It's not as good as using two melee weapons, but if you are fighting lesser creatures having an extra attack may be a better option than high damage. It is probably more applicable outside of a horde setting, such as in DH or RT.

I should probably have specified: all attacks will suffer the appropriate modifiers. I thought the first line covered that.

A claymore is unwieldy? Seriously?!! WTF?!

Ok...well, I personally wouldn't bother actually writing talents for that. I'd just go through all the two handers and replace the unwieldy/unbalanced trait as required. Eviscerator... ok, I can live with that being unbalanced, I guess. But Claymores should have the balanced trait. It's absurd that a two handed blade lacks such a trait, while a chainsword has it. That gives a boost without forcing an XP spend.

I'd rather more be tempted to keep the 'blast' attack move than the flurry. The flurry is unwieldy and doesn't make very much sense to me. If you can strike someone with the pommel of a greatsword, why not a one-handed blade? The point of a two-handed weapon isn't to hit things faster.

The lunge... well, I don't use battlemaps and would never consider using them in the game, as I want fast-paced, cinematic combat, not a skirmish war-game. And the idea of starting to create talents which require the use of a battlemap is a bad one to my mind, as there is nothing like that in existence. And we all know how lame the whole 'reach' thing is in 3.5.

But if we're making up talents to support two-handers, then:

Two-handed mastery

All your attacks and parries with two handed weapons are at +10, due to the increased control over the blade given by wielding it with two hands. Furthermore, the PEN is increased by 3 to represent the accuracy with which you can deliver blows to weak points.

Siranui said:

The lunge talent I proposed by no means requires a battle mat. I used mechanics that are already in the system to add an effect, range on a melee weapon, that already exists in the system. This does not require a map to use, cinematic description and an understanding that different weapons have different ranges is all you need to implement it.

You certainly can strike someone with a one handed blade's pommel. There is not much use in it, but it can be done. Historical fighting styles that used great weapons and pole arms often incorporated pommel strikes to combat enemies that are closer than optimal range. All the Flurry attack does is add an option to those who like two-handed weapons.

As to your talent, what are the requirements? The wording doesn't bypass either Unwieldy or Unbalanced so would both still apply as normal? Having a PEN increase and parry bonus would lead me to believe this would need to be an upper level talent, WS 60 & AG 50?

You did a good job with your talents. Forget the nay-sayers, I already tried to address this topic and got tired of trying to teach basic math.

How about this one:

Lunge: When making an All Out Attack with a two-handed melee weapon, you can improve your Initiative by 4 for the turn.

This avoids the range issues and can add a bit of a tactical element. If your opponent is going at 12 and you go at 10, you might elect to take that risky All Out Attack on initiative count 14 before your opponent strikes if you think you can him with one blow (or two if you have Furious Assault) rather than the typical Swift/Lighting/TWW flurry of doom you'd normally unleash on initiative count 10 after your opponent attacks.

ItsUncertainWho said:

RE: Lunge. I guess it just comes down to how fights are run. In my games, a 2m 'reach' would be useless: I'd be happy for characters with normal weapons to step and lunge that distance, and I'd probably not be in a situation where monsters ran up to PCs and cheesily stopped just outside normal melee range to shoot or whatever. It's basically quite niche, and its use is completely dependant on how the GM runs the game. If the length of a weapon was to come into play, I'd rather it be as a 'soft' advantage that the GM used in flavour and applied on-the-spot modifiers on than something hard-wired and requiring a talent to use properly.

I'm quite impressed with Happydaze's interpretation which gives initiative on a full attack. However, I think it would also be better if named something else [erm... 'long reach'?], as a lunge may be performed with any weapon and indeed is a much more typical move of lighter, thrusting weapons. To any fencer, calling a two-handed talent 'lunge' is a bit deceiving.

I know that pommel strikes are physically possible. Great swords in particular are a complete weapon system, where every part of them can be used for attack, including the qullion. My point though was that if one can squeeze in an extra attack with a two-hander, then one can do so with a one-hander as well. Which means that the talent stands out as a very artificial-seeming way to power-up tow handers.

I hadn't thought particularly hard about requirements. Probably quite low to be honest, and lacking any agility requirement, as it represents some pretty basic knowledge of two-handed use, such as half-swording and the ability to easily cover both sides of the body. Two-handed weapons are just MUCH more easy to control than one-handers. Never use one hand on a blade when you can use two, as you're just disadvantaging yourself horribly. Maybe WS45. After all: these talents are supposed to even-up two handers with two weapons, and fighting with a two hander is a very easy thing to master compared to using a case/pair of weapons.

As per my opening statement, I feel that the best way to deal with unwieldy / unbalanced traits is to go through the weapon charts with a pen and inject a bit of common sense into the weapon traits. One should not be charged XP and taxed in talents because of the original author's unfamiliarity with classical fencing. Claymores should be balanced, as should relic blades. Eviscorators are probably a pig to parry with, but no more than a normal chainsword (which is balanced). In fact, Eviscorators are probably a lot easier to use due to having both hands on them.

One thing I´m gonna do for my games is to allow characters to ignore the Unwieldy property for Thunder Hammers wielded in two hands (since they can also be wielded 1-handed, they´re giving up the use of the other hand, and it seems balanced). I could see similar things being done for other weapons, and if all else fails, some of those talents you´re suggesting seem like a good option.

Siranui said:

have you ever tried weilding a claymore mate they are unwieldy they are designed to put weight behind an attack not parry a blow

Yes, I have. And claymores aren't even that big for two-handers. I'm sorry, but you you've been wrongly informed. No sword shaped in that manner is designed to put weight behind a cut.

How much do you think they weigh, anyway? 10lb?

If you want to slice some cheese, do you you just slam the knife blade down onto it, or do you draw the blade and actually use the edge. That's how swords work: They cut, not chop. That's the point of having a long blade (along with being excellent defensively).

Let's put it into historical perspective. Highlanders were not heavily armoured for their era. Carrying a great sword meant no shield. So with light armour and no shield, how to you think highlanders survived a melee? By swinging a big heavy sword that was slow to use and couldn't be used defensively to any reasonable degree? Or by using a weapon that was just as agile as everyone else's and was perfectly capable of defensive use?

The tale that two handed swords are blunt, heavy, slow instruments is a horrific lie told to us by films and games designers who didn't bother doing five minutes of research.

Siranui said:

Five minutes of research if you have internet access. Which they didn't have at the time the memes were formed, if you're old enough to remember. Or old enough to not remember anymore.

(No offense intended, just joking.)

Alex

ak-73 said:

What am I trying to remember?

It may be a horrific lie, but it's how fantasy two handers are presented. It's also easier on the rules to make a two handed weapon do +X damage than it is to build what would essentially be a different fighting system around them (same for most weapons really, polearms and axes aren't exactly accurately depicted in games either, nor is the full auto rule in DW close to reality).

Edit: $*&! Quote System

Charmander said:

As someone who practices European martial arts I can give you a long list of what most fantasy games get wrong. Most of the myths stem from the Victorian idea that anything between the classical age and the age of enlightenment was poorly done and/or fundamentally flawed somehow. The idea that two handers are slow and dull is correct... to a point. They have mass and speed that they don't need to be very sharp (note: This does not mean DULL) to be effective, and they are only slow if you keep both hands between the pommel and the cross guard, in most styles it was important to keep one hand (normally in a glove) on the blade itself, which altered the forces on the weapon, which altered how fast it could be wielded.

I could go on, but it's late and I need sleep.

ak-73 said:

Gygax has a lot to answer for, being the founder of many myths. Although taking a step back, he did try to do research. Unfortunately he didn't have the Internet to fall back on and his primary research source was a book on arms and armour published in 1906. Hence the invention of studded leather armour; which has never existed outside of the Hell's Angels.

If two-handed weapons were as slow as portrayed, then nobody would ever have used one, because they'd have been killed in their first conflict.

The first problem of fighting with a onehander vs a twohander is to come near enough to be able to hit yout opponent.
If he's using the reach of his weapon right that's no easy task. And contrary to popular believe he isn't helpless once you do get near.
There are a lot of things you can do with a twohander in close quarters. And on top of that you can just take a step back in most cases.

I personaly still prefer to use a onehander + shield over twohanders or dual whilding but that's not because it's better but it fells more right for me.

And another thought I wanted to adress: The rule that onehanded weapons can be quickdrawn and twohanded weapons can not is wishful thinking as well.
In my opinion it depends more on how its carried and what kind of weapon it is.
Some kinds of twohanded swords are easier and quicker drawn than mostz onehanded maces or some axes. Not speaking of ball-and-chains or flails.

IMHO Talents are the right fix if you want to improve two handers, because it's a pay for play type of system. It's not 'realistic' but then again the whole combat system isn't realistic. Modifying the base stats of the two handed weapons without modifying the underlying system can easily make them superior to single handed weapons, which is also an inaccurate depiction, and mucks up some of the rules.

That said, I'm not sure making them usable with parry but at a penalty (from unwieldy to unbalanced) might be a fix that could blend realism with the game depiction a bit better, though you'd probably still have blance problems with axes at that point.

Chiming in here a little late, so please forgive me. I was wondering what the consensus would be with granting two handed weapons extra hits based on number of successes. This ability could be based on talents akin to Swift attack and lightning attack.

Cleave

prereq: WS 35, STR 35

The characters experience with two handed weapons grants them more devastating strikes. The character may make a full action to perform Cleave, when doing so every 3 successes grants another hit.

Powerful Cleave

prereq: WS 45, STR 45, Cleave

With a mighty swing the character can bring even the most powerful foe low. The character may make a full action when performing Powerful Cleave, when doing so every 2 successes grants another hit.

This is still a rough idea, I understand it may not be particularly balanced. The idea is to translate a large weapon scoring more damage against a foe when used a single powerful swing. Input and criticism welcome.

@Omicron

The draw back to what you are suggesting is that armor and toughness would be applied to each hit. This may or may not add damage overall but it would up the chances of RF happening.

What might be a better solution, using your basic concept, would be to add a pen (similar to Razor Sharp) or a damage bonus based on DoS, instead of additional hits.

Plus of course you're adding extra talents for melee characters to blow their XP on. An approach that's not a tax would be better, really.

Siranui said:

I wouldn't view it as a tax anymore than the TWW talents are a tax to use two weapons.

To be honest, I'm not sure 2handed weapons need the boost.

You lose out on one attack, but once you have swift/lightning attack it's often better to have 3 more powerful attacks than 4 less powerful ones. The damage is comparable or better against everything but hordes. And even some of that different is mollified by the fact that -10 when Dual Wielding will reduce your DoS and therefore you'll get less extra damage to their magnitude on some attacks.

The only true issue is with the Unwieldy penalty on some of the larger swords, which is counterintuitive. So just remove that. I don't really have a problem with the Executioner Axe, or if they ever make one, the Daemonhammer having Unwieldy.

On a side note, I'm not entirely sure it isn't intentional that two-handed weapons are unappealing. You very rarely see Marines using two-handers except for Grey Knights.

At Last Forgot said:

You seem to forget Quickdraw which, in my opinion, is a mayor drawback.