Spawned by an earlier thread I wanted to bring up the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of D&D's two paramount melee fighting styles. Two handed weapons vs. two weapon fighting.
Two handed weapon: Obvious pros
1. Power: The option of power attack is a no brainer to any combatant and with this in mind it makes one of the most destructive melee forces in D&D. This is especially effective against damage reduction
2. Simple: The fact that this is so easy bears repeating. A decent strength and 1 feat is all it takes to create a very effective fighting concept. A little deeper into the feat chain and you get cleave, a very useful feat especially when coupled with power attack.
Perhaps not so obvious pros.
1. Very universal: Even if your fighter gets his favorite weapon destroyed/taken away two handed weapons are easy to come by. A fighter that looses his great axe can pick up a club or long sword or any one handed weapon and fight on with a relatively small decrease in his effectiveness depending on how much they invested in their weapon.
2. Hard to disrupt: Every fighters worst nightmare is to have their tools taken away. Most combatants are crippled when they are disarmed. Two handed weapons get a boon in this particular category. +4 to resist disarming and the larger weapons are harder to sunder or destroy. Also even when this event does pop up the two hander has other options; see above.
Obvious cons.
1.Need help here.
Perhaps not so obvious cons.
1. Scary: NPC's and villains with any amount of intellect will be aware of the destructive power of a hulking brute with a huge weapon. Barbarians should not be surprised to find themselves hit with rays of enfeeblement and will save spells on a constant basis. This problem rises exponentially if the antagonist had the capability to use mental domination spells. Two handed weapons are always just as deadly, if not more so, to PC's as it is to the villains.
Two weapon fighting. Obvious pros:
1. Really cool: I realize that this is not really an argumentative point but I deeply believe that there are few things as cinematically beautiful as an agile combatant reducing foes to ribbons in a dervish of combatic grace.
2. Very appealing to certain classes: Easier for rangers, very efficient in the hands of rogues. Adding extra damage like sneak attack dice and favored enemy bonuses is a huge boost to the lethality in these cases. Often this can be further augmented by utilizing high crit range weapons, this is especially true of rangers as their favored enemy bonuses get multiplied. The dervish prestige class (complete warrior) also makes this style more appealing.
Catalyst: The two weapon fighting tree increases the impact of many other feats if the weapons wielded are the same. Weapon focus, specialization, and improved critical are the most obvious and arguably the most famous in this regard
Obvious cons.
Difficult: The two weapon fighting feats have relatively steep requirements and require secondary and tertiary feats to keep up the fighting style in higher levels.
Expensive: In many campaigns heavily enchanted weapons are extremely attractive, sometimes necessary, options. Two weapon fighting creates a severe problem as the upkeep of their weapons often leads to quickly consumed funds.
Low base damage per it: due to the typically lower str of two weapon specialists/their typical favor of smaller weapons/reduced enhancements on their weapons/and penalties the style suffers to damage from the off hand the characters can be reduced to very situational roles. When the rogue and ranger cannot benefit from their extra damage they are many times left to "chip" away at stronger enemies or attack the weaker minions to make effective use of their skills. This problem is compounded in the face of damage reduction.
Perhaps not so obvious cons
Easily disrupted: Disarming is easy on two weapon wielders, fewer weapons are suitable to the task, and backup weapons are rare as many two weapon fighters have enough trouble keeping their primary tools properly upgraded. Damaging a combatants dex score is very painful. Not only do they suffer the obvious penalties of dex drain but if reduced enough they can lose their ability to use their two weapon fighting feats. This is especially harmful to PCs that make use of weapon finesse, a popular choice for many two weapon fighters.
Well this is all I've personally come up with. From what I can tell two handers have a mechanical advantage over two weapons.
That said that will never stop me from playing a two weapon fighter. I think it is an extremely impressive concept and despite it's disadvantages it is still one of my favorite character attributes. Before anyone feels the need to denounce me as a munchkin I feel I should clarify that I did not create this thread to find the mnk2/ght3/drgn?5/Wrm7 super concept that creates the unstoppable two weapon fighter. I'd actually prefer those to stay out of the discussion entirely. What I'm looking for is discussion and debate on the two fighting styles that seem to go head to head in many discussions.
An obvious con of wielding a two-handed weapon? Can't use a shield, unless it's a buckler - and bucklers give a -1 penalty to attack rolls made using that hand. There's no "Two-handed Weapon Defense" feat (though if you're going for an anime style game, some of those suckers almost qualify as tower shields... and I believe I've seen them used as such)
Another con: two-handed weapons don't work well in an urban setting. Seriously, can you even imagine walking nonchalantly through a market with a scythe strapped to your back? Now, that doesn't stop it from happening, but if you're having an issue with people wielding comically oversized weapons in your game, it's something to point out.
Also, while two-handed weapons get that +4 bonus against disarm checks, remember that the two weapon wielder has... TWO weapons, so even if he gets disarmed, he's still armed. Unless he gets disARMed by a marilith.
Another not so obvious con of two-handed weapons is that they pretty much require you to funnel as many points as you can into Strength, leaving your other scores weakened, while the two-weapon fighter usually has decent Strength and decent to good Dexterity, which means he's got a higher AC (at least a higher touch AC) and is better with ranged combat and Reflex saves.
An obvious con of wielding a two-handed weapon? Can't use a shield, unless it's a buckler - and bucklers give a -1 penalty to attack rolls made using that hand. There's no "Two-handed Weapon Defense" feat (though if you're going for an anime style game, some of those suckers almost qualify as tower shields... and I believe I've seen them used as such)
Another con: two-handed weapons don't work well in an urban setting. Seriously, can you even imagine walking nonchalantly through a market with a scythe strapped to your back? Now, that doesn't stop it from happening, but if you're having an issue with people wielding comically oversized weapons in your game, it's something to point out.
Also, while two-handed weapons get that +4 bonus against disarm checks, remember that the two weapon wielder has... TWO weapons, so even if he gets disarmed, he's still armed. Unless he gets disARMed by a marilith.
Another not so obvious con of two-handed weapons is that they pretty much require you to funnel as many points as you can into Strength, leaving your other scores weakened, while the two-weapon fighter usually has decent Strength and decent to good Dexterity, which means he's got a higher AC (at least a higher touch AC) and is better with ranged combat and Reflex saves.
Good points. I ommited the lack of a sheild since neither two handers or two weapons could benefit.
I think you're right though the Scary con would be a hindrance when dealing with most any NPC not just enemies.
I totally agree with Sexi on this one-the greatest advantage of two weapon fighting is its coolness!
In my revamp, I'm making two weapon fighting a bit more badass than two hand fighting--as it should be. Aside from the coolness, you have to burn all those feats to fight right with 2 weapons so there should be some payoff.
Mathematically, two-weapon fighting always loses. No way around it. You can try to help it with 4 levels of fighter (for specialization) and 3 levels in swashbuckler (for Int bonus to damage), and then use the same weapon in each hand, and make sure each weapon is flaming or frost or whatever... that's about the only way to catch up. The 2-handed power attack still wins. So, as with many other "issues" on these boards (warmages and duskblades, anyone?), the trade-off depends on the type of campaign. In an all-dungeon-crawl slugfest, the 2-handed guy wins. In an urban campaign, as Sexi Golem points out, the thug with the greataxe is politely asked to check his steer cleaver at the door, but the guy with 2 hidden daggers can slip past the bouncer. It's all in the campaign.
A point of two weapon fighting that hasn't been stated yet, possibly because it was thought redundantly obvious, is that you have TWO weapons, meaning TWO chances to attack. Since the style is demanding, most people will keep the feat chain going, meaning they will have double the attacks of a two-handed fighter most of the time, which, assuming hits and comparing damage, helps balance it out.
And, yes, two-weapon fighting is just cinematically awesome in general.
Being a lowly Ranger without a ton of feats or gold - Quarterstaff.
The weapons free and for a Ranger the two-weapon feat is free. And with a quarterstaff you can switch from two-hand to two-weapon as needs must.
And you can play at "simple traveller with a walking pole" when passing the city guard.
For other classes I can see how it might not be worth the feat, but for a Ranger its my choice over the bow skil (they sound much sexier but in most fights I've found that the chances of getting more than a single shot before being in melee are low).
I have made a couple of character concepts that centered around changing from their normal attack routine to two handed melee. But that. That my friend is genius and fits amazingly with a rangers flavor. I bow to you sir.
Being a lowly Ranger without a ton of feats or gold - Quarterstaff.
The weapons free and for a Ranger the two-weapon feat is free. And with a quarterstaff you can switch from two-hand to two-weapon as needs must.
And you can play at "simple traveller with a walking pole" when passing the city guard.
For other classes I can see how it might not be worth the feat, but for a Ranger its my choice over the bow skil (they sound much sexier but in most fights I've found that the chances of getting more than a single shot before being in melee are low).
I used a similar gambit, but with a "shepherds crook". Acts like a 1/4 staff, but you can make trip attacks with the hook on the end. Add a couple sheep and a sheep dog, and you have a fairly effective character with lots of fun flavor and meat on the hoof :)
I've always thought the penalties for two-weapon fighting were a bit too stiff. I mean sure, it's hard, but it's not that hard. I've done plenty of niten (two sword techniques) in kenjutsu classes over the years, and I think to apply a penalty for using a sword in each hand but not for using a sword and shield is a bit rich, especially if you have a long and a short blade; it requires roughly the same level of co-ordination. It's easy to get used to and it's not like your trying to solder a microchip with your off-hand - you're swinging a sword.
I mean paired weapons are used in one of two ways:
1) You use your wakizashi/main gauche/dagger as a defensive weapon in Musashi/European style, in which case I think it should count as a buckler or small shield, or
2)you use them both to attack with, in which case you are most likely going to strike with both weapons nearly simultanously, otherwise what's the point? In fact, why not allow the PC to switch between these two attack modes between rounds? Makes sense.
But to be honest I don't know of anyone historically using method 2. I think it occurs only in fantasy media or under special circumstances. Two weapon fighting in real life means one attacking blade and one parrying blade.
In Palladiums' TMNT system if you fight with paired weapons you make one hit roll and either miss with both weapons or hit with both weapons. This seems fine to me. I don't think rolling two damage dice for one hit roll with a pair of weapons is too much, and matches up pretty well against the damage potential of power-attacking great weapons if one is a long sword and one is a short sword or dagger. Maybe two scimitars might be pushing game balance, but as sexigolem said you're going to have to pay for twice as many magic weapons...
Anyway I reckon if you are going to have a penalty for two weapon use it should be -2/-4, reducible to -2/-2 with Ambidexterity, and in all fairness anyone using a shield should suffer a -2 to hit or lose their shield bonus, if it's that hard to co-ordinate two hands in combat ;)
Anyone who has fenced with two blades knows that the penalties in D&D are ludicrously high. But whatcha gunna do? It's an abstract system. It just seems to me that the designers were a tad overly-cautious about allowing people to have a weapon in each hand, and were concentrating so hard on it that they didn't notice how much damage a greatsword with power attack actually does.
Righteous post dude.
(TMNT--good times).
The fire and stones cut, that was primarily a "sunder" move, right? That's the only time I can think of where one would cut with two swords at once...
Not that I have any formal fencing training; I read the Go Rin No Sho though.
Yeah, if I remember my Musashi correctly he does have a strike using both swords where the aim is to "break the opponent's sword," though in Go Rin No Sho (and other Japanese sword texts) "break his sword" can also have the metaphorical meaning of breaking his defence, or sometimes even of breaking his fighting spirit. I'm also unclear about how you are meant to use both swords to do this -it's one of those techniques (very common in the Japanese sword arts) that is school specific and the book is deliberately unclear!
Heiho Niten Ichiryu (Musashi's style) is very rare, though some of it's basic two-weapon techniques have been absorbed by other styles, which is how I learnt them. The ZNKR (All Japan Kendo Federation) even has niten kata for advanced gradings.
It's very hard to understand how a school-specific cut works unless you are shown by a sensei of that school. I've actually tried to work out some of Musashi's cuts using the book, but I don't think it's possible without studying with a Heiho Niten Ichiryu teacher.
Another great book if you like that sort of thing is "The Life Giving Sword" by Yagyu Munenori, the sword teacher to the Shogun at the time of Musashi. Most of the kenjutsu I know is Yagyu based. It relies heavily on counter-attack and positioning.
Oh yeah, another interesting factoid - some Japanese scholars think that Musashi got his niten technique from watching some Europeans fighting in Yokohama. It certainly resembles rapier/main gauche fencing, though that could just be because it's the only effective way to fight with two blades, and Musashi, being a practical guy, learnt that from experience!
Anyway sorry about the ramble. I tend to get carried away when the conversation turns to kendo...
|
Naah, there's nothing more worthwhile to ramble about than kendo.
I got that Yagyu Munenori book; it was part of a second copy of the Book of Five Rings I bought on the cheap at Borders.
I liked the part about clearing your mind of obsession to function properly. That's the part of the whole thing that stuck in my mind.
I also knew Musashi studied European fencing, but didn't know he possibly adapted his two-sword style from it. Interesting.
Hurray for Kendo.
Just remember - like most (all) martial arts it is a sport and a conditioning discipline - not actual fighting, though some systems come closer than others. (From what I've read) Musashi was a fighter first and a martial artist when he figured he understood the real deal as well as he was going to. That was an interesting post about watching the Europeans.
As to two weapon fighting in the game, another limitation no one has brought up yet is drawing sheathing two weapons. If you are a spell caster of any sort and have a weapon in each hand you can't cast - nor can you hold a rope, drink a potion (potentially a big deal), or any number of other things that require a free hand.
does the Two Weapon Defense feat still incur penaties to attack? IIRC, it allows you to use your off hand weapon essentially inplace of a shield. anyone? anyone? Bueller?
I've always thought the penalties for two-weapon fighting were a bit too stiff. I mean sure, it's hard, but it's not that hard. I've done plenty of niten (two sword techniques) in kenjutsu classes over the years, and I think to apply a penalty for using a sword in each hand but not for using a sword and shield is a bit rich, especially if you have a long and a short blade; it requires roughly the same level of co-ordination. It's easy to get used to and it's not like your trying to solder a microchip with your off-hand - you're swinging a sword.
I've been considering eliminating 2wf penalties altogether (with the feat + 1 light weapon), so I'm glad to have someone with personal experience to back me up.
As to two weapons only being used as parry + attack mode, that's new to me and kind of dissapointing. I always imagined that the lighter weapon was used to tie up an opponent's weapon (whether by parrying or feint) while the heavier goes in for the money shot. Of course combat is chaotic so, it could easily end up being reversed...anyway in any game where archery is a viable fighting style for any single character, any style is possible right?
|
|
IME, the problems with two-weapon fighting IRL are three-fold:
1. You don't hit as hard, because your body is square to your opponent, which makes it harder to swing efficiently.
2. Your reach is diminished, for the same reason as above.
3. Your defense is compromised, particularly against midline attacks, because two-weapon styles distract you at least as much as your opponent.
Of the above, only the reach thing negatively affects your ability to hit your opponent. Using the base D&D combat model, if I wanted to better reflect my experience, I'd probably give a TWFer a -2 to hit, a -1 damage for each weapon, and a -4 AC. With the basic feat, -1/-1/-2.
Being a lowly Ranger without a ton of feats or gold - Quarterstaff.
The weapons free and for a Ranger the two-weapon feat is free. And with a quarterstaff you can switch from two-hand to two-weapon as needs must.
And you can play at "simple traveller with a walking pole" when passing the city guard.
For other classes I can see how it might not be worth the feat, but for a Ranger its my choice over the bow skil (they sound much sexier but in most fights I've found that the chances of getting more than a single shot before being in melee are low).
I've used this setup for NPCs before to great effect. The quarterstaff also works nicely because one weapon focus feat covers both of your attacks.
Recently started playing an elf fighter specialized in the two-bladed sword, just cause I thought it was cinematically cool. Not sure if these things ever existed historically, but they don't stretch the imaginary verisimilitude quite as much as a double-ended orc axe. The great part with this weapon is, I can go from double-handed attack to two-weapon fighting from round to round as I see fit. Power Attack and Cleave only sacrifice two feats from my repertoire and enhance my fighting in either mode, so it's kind of a happy medium. Yeah, not quite as much damage as a half-orc using a large greataxe with monkey-grip and power attack, but pretty respectable.
One problem with two-weapon fighting I discovered with this character, and it depends on how you play--we have a critical fumble rule in this campaign, and you have a lot more opportunities to roll a 1 when you're rolling twice as many attacks as a two-handed wielder. Fortunately our system has a built in mechanism for reducing the chances of an actual fumble as your attack bonus goes up, but it is annoying when you have to worry about rolling a fumble every 2-3 rounds.
Hurray for Kendo.
Just remember - like most (all) martial arts it is a sport and a conditioning discipline - not actual fighting, though some systems come closer than others.
Good thing too - I'd like to avoid being in a battle to the death with live blades if it's at all possible thank you very much :)
There is no truly effective way to train for a real sword fight. It's impossible. It's like training to be shot; not viable unless you are a maniac who doesn't plan on living long. The various fencing arts are the closest you're ever going to get.
As to two weapons only being used as parry + attack mode, that's new to me and kind of dissapointing. I always imagined that the lighter weapon was used to tie up an opponent's weapon (whether by parrying or feint) while the heavier goes in for the money shot. Of course combat is chaotic so, it could easily end up being reversed...
Yeah that's kind of what I'm describing. The lighter weapon is defensive, the longer blade is offensive. And you're right, combat is chaotic, if you get an opening to stab with your defensive weapon it's not like you're going to NOT stab the guy ;)
IME, the problems with two-weapon fighting IRL are three-fold:
1. You don't hit as hard, because your body is square to your opponent, which makes it harder to swing efficiently.
2. Your reach is diminished, for the same reason as above.
3. Your defense is compromised, particularly against midline attacks, because two-weapon styles distract you at least as much as your opponent.
1 & 2 are minimized by European and Musashi style TWF. You stand side-on just like regular fencing with your light weapon leading. Still, it makes it hard not to telegraph your attacks with your primary weapon IME.
As for 3, I tend to agree. I prefer to hold my bokken two-handed. I can move it much faster and more deceptively, move much more effectively, and close any openings in my defence much more efficiently.
|
|
Kahoolin and Doug:
To what extent do you relate armed two weapon technique to unarmed two weapon technique?
In general, I have found extending the usual unarmed continuous attack to short (dagger/short sword/tonfa/sai) weapons to compensate for all the issues, allowing both weapons to serve as guard and strike, allow for proper body positioning to focus strength, to allow for proper body position to compensate for reach. The one point lost is what Doug noted about raw power, which is left contrasted with precision. Which naturally works quite well against unarmored people, but would leave me running for my staff if someone wandered by in plate mail.
As best you can, as I expect most of this is "it has to be shown" stuff.
Oh, and "rant about not being able to trip with a quarterstaff." :)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This is a great thread, and I agree that 2WF is intrinsicly fun and cool, but I think it's hilarious how much the perception of 2WF has changed from the days of 2e. I suppose it's because in 2e, 2WF was significantly better than fighting with just one weapon if you could negate the penalties through a toxic brew of high dexterity and class abilities. As a result, 2WF characters were considered to be super cheesy, the type of thing that only a Drizzt worshipping munchkin would actually play.
Kahoolin and Doug:
To what extent do you relate armed two weapon technique to unarmed two weapon technique?
Do you mean in the game? It seems wierd to me that you can make unarmed two-weapon attacks in the first place. Unarmed combat IRL (or armed combat for that matter) always uses the whole body, and when someone (like a monk) launches an unarmed attack I assume that they are using either or both fists (or whatever) to strike or throw their opponent. To give them a primary hand attack and an off-hand attack is a bit silly IMO. My jab doesn't suffer any loss of accuracy because it is with my left hand, and my cross is not appreciably stronger because it is my right (I am right handed).
Can you even apply TWF feats to unarmed attacks to get an extra attack? I'm assuming that you can, seeing as you can weapon focus unarmed attacks. You shouldn't be able to though. This is one area where the rules are waaay out of touch with reality.
If you're talking about real life, the same thing applies. Co-ordinating your two empty hands is very different from co-ordinating two swords, and I don't think you can really relate the techniques all that much.
Unfortunately, I remember reading in the FAQ (although it's been a while, so a more recent version may have invalidated this) that a full-attacking, hasted monk with the two-weapon fighting feats can use his flurry to make... let's see... 9 attacks? The number 11 pops into my head for some reason. However, that's what the RAW allow, apparently. Don't know if it should be that way or not.
|
|
If you're talking about real life, the same thing applies. Co-ordinating your two empty hands is very different from co-ordinating two swords, and I don't think you can really relate the techniques all that much.
I meant IRL.
I suppose then it is a matter of my preferring small weapons (daggers to short swords). I don't work with largeblades, so I was interested in the views of someone who did.Very interesting.
|
I have trained with a variety of oriental long blades (chinese broadswords(don't think that is the real name), hook swords, ring swords) and a variety of shorter weapons (sais, butterfly swords, tonfas, nunchucka) and the short blades are much easier to coordinate. They don't tend to get tangled in each other (the hook swords are horrible for that)and are easy to keep under full control. Ring swords are not a good weapon to use twinned, however the chinese broadswords (an oriental scimatar, basically) were fun and easy to use in a twinned manner. Most of our twf techniques for long blades used alot of dual strikes, dual blocks and reinforced strikes (using one weapons force and momentum to back up the other to "power" through a defense). You can get power from a twf strike but it ties up your off-hand in doing so.
Just some observations from me. Hope they contribute to the discussion.
FH
Aubrey, Fakey is one lethal daddy! From what I remember, he has had several years of martial arts classes. My guess as to why he took martial arts is to make sure that his kids dates got them back before 10 pm. The only thing better at ensuring that is a gun! ~GRINS~
|
|
Out of curiosity - where are you guys learning to wave these swords around? I presume at martial arts classes, but it seems a bit on the extreme side with all these blades and whatnot.
Tang Soo Do and Tai Kwan Do taught mostly hand and foot techniques but my instructors also believed in teaching things like arm-bars, staff, pole weapons, nunchucka, and other minor weapons in a limited capacity. The different Kung-fu styles went much more in depth with the various weapon styles. After a bunch of years training you can pick up books on weapon/forms techniques and they can actually be useful if you have a working knowledge of martial arts techniques.
The one regret in my training is that I never studied any of the Fencing styles or a more European style of combat. I think I would have loved fencing and been great at it if I had studied it.FH(not bragging BTW, most of that stuff is damn near useless now;))
|
|
SCA (both heavy and light) and IFGS, with some minor admixture of oriental martial arts, plus a fair amount of reading about ancient and medieval weapons styles and technology.
I <i>do</i> understand many of the shortcomings of using recreation styles for guidance, but they are still instructive. Teaching new combatants is also quite instructive, in that you see the common errors and blind spots in a way that you don't see or remember when you are learning yourself.
I started kendo (generic ZNKR) and iaido (seitei) when I was 12. After I got my kendo/iai teaching certificate when I was 18, I taught for a couple of years, then managed to find a Yagyu kenjutsu teacher. I got about a year out of him before he left town and then I picked up a book so I'd have a record of the techniques.
Along the way I picked up a *little* bit of tai chi in exchange for iaido lessons with an old chinese guy (I felt like I was in a movie, it was awesome). I also have done odds and ends of unarmed stuff, mostly muay thai, boxing, and recently aikido, which has also helped with my kenjutsu as aiki sword techniques are based pretty heavily on Yagyu kenjutsu. I am only an aiki beginner though!
Wow, it seems like alot when I write it all out... Like Fakey I wish I'd done some western fencing too, but I'm getting towards 30 now and there's only so much you can do in one lifetime. I've been doing JSA since I was 12 so I might as well stick with what I know...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Out of curiosity - where are you guys learning to wave these swords around? I presume at martial arts classes, but it seems a bit on the extreme side with all these blades and whatnot.
I learned the basics of fencing in school (yes, fencing was a CLASS) and then got into two-weapon fighting through some friends in the SCA. We've actually been using a modified version of Florentine style that uses two rapiers instead of a rapier and main-gauche and I must say, its extremely effective.
I also learned a two-handed weapon style from a real hardcore Scotsman who actually studied the claymore styles of the highland warriors. I've learned that, against a single light blade (like normal French fencing), two-handed weapons RULE. Against a dual-wielder? It's rough, especially against the twin-rapier style that we've started using.
In my experience, yes, two-handed weapons hit A LOT harder than anyone ever could with a one-hander. I have noticed that, when fighting with two weapons, you do tend to favor one over the other (usually your 'strong' hand). But I wouldn't say that it warrants a -2/-4 penalty. I would say -0/-2 maybe.
Edit: For the record, you do not and practically CANNOT parry a two-handed weapon with a rapier alone. In order to kill the momentum of a two-handed swing, you cross your two blades in an 'X' and catch the force at the intersection, stopping the swing's force or you catch it between the blade and hand guard (very difficult in combat). People who are running combat and describe duelists batting aside a greatsword with their rapier is just wrong. They might slightly alter the angle of attack, but the reason they missed was because the duelist knew to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Sorry, pet peeve moment.
personaly i have trained myself, i never use longer blades i dont like them i am a "Short-sword" user a blade no longer then 12" for me thank you >:).. i never took any classes i pratice with 4 of my friends never with live steel, Ren fair allows me to play a little more roughly but i normaly use padded blades or wood, as far as the TWF rules i changed them:
Ambidex makes you have no off hand, meaning you HAVE NO OFF HAND!!!! none of this 1/2 Str stuff anymore takeing the whole set of TWF feats also grants you the right to buy a few TWF only feats i made up because i wanted people to use TWF evewry now and then.
Nifty stuff particularly from Kahoolin, Fake, Doug and others who trained with this stuff in RL. A couple things in game. Ambidexterity has been folded into TWF for 3.5. One less feat to snag. With the critical fumbles idea that would work, but if it were fumbled by only n-1 hands (where n is the number of hands a creature is using to hold the weapon) they would still be holding it and possibly still able to use it just not as effectively in a combat situation, depending on what the weapon is. Also why did the sai get listed in the PHB as a BLUDGEONING weapon? It seems a bit odd considering where the grip is and the profile and method of use. Then again it probably was a typo.
SP
Unless you're facing a foe with DR (or with DR negated), two-weapons is the superior choice. You might not strike as hard, but you strike more often.
|
|
Also why did the sai get listed in the PHB as a BLUDGEONING weapon? It seems a bit odd considering where the grip is and the profile and method of use. Then again it probably was a typo.
SP
Because a sai is a bludgeoning weapon.
It can be used as a piercing weapon, but its primary focus is a bludgeoning and controlling weapon.It is also very much a police weapon and not a military weapon, as well as having a very distinct bias towards being an authority weapon and not a common weapon. (Officers carry them as a symbol of their rank, much like army officers carry pistols.) And because of those factors, you get the preference for its use as a bludgeoning weapon. (Poking holes in prisoners means a ton of paperwork.)
What a sai definitely is not is a slashing weapon. It is not an Asian main-gauche or anything similar, and the sides are not sharpened.
I would also note that most movie portrayals of sai show them being held incorrectly. You do NOT curl your fingers over the guard unless you really like being called "Eight-Fingers." You grasp the hilt with four fingers, and brace your thumb against one side (the "inside" relative to the way you swing it) of the "blade" to stabilize it for strikes. If you want to thrust, you brace your thumb over the "top" of the blade (again, relative to your stike). However, the tip of a sai is not the same as the hardened steel chisel tip of a Japanese blade, and it will not punch through armor. I'd treat using the sai as a piercing weapon similar to using a whip, it only works against unarmored foes.
At least in my experience with the weapon.
Also why did the sai get listed in the PHB as a BLUDGEONING weapon? It seems a bit odd considering where the grip is and the profile and method of use. Then again it probably was a typo.
SP
I'm pretty sure that this is not a typo. I have no experience using an actual sai, but I think that they have blunted tips - the concept for using them is disarming your opponent's weapon, which they work exceptionally well at.
|
|
A sai is a really solid chunk of metal; not sharp at all though it tapers at the business end. If you hold one, it's like holding a lead pipe, and it would not feel good to get hit in the head with it--hence "bludgeoning" as opposed to slashing or piercing.
I believe it was evolved from a farming tool much like the tonfa, nunchaku and the kama.
The way I heard it, the samurai would outlaw weaponry and martial arts practice, so the peasant martial artists would utilize farming implements.
I think the sai was evolved from an asian pitch fork.
|
A sai is a really solid chunk of metal; not sharp at all though it tapers at the business end. If you hold one, it's like holding a lead pipe, and it would not feel good to get hit in the head with it--hence "bludgeoning" as opposed to slashing or piercing.
That's not how Rafael of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles uses them, and I think he would know better than you.
With the critical fumbles idea that would work, but if it were fumbled by only n-1 hands (where n is the number of hands a creature is using to hold the weapon) they would still be holding it and possibly still able to use it just not as effectively in a combat situation, depending on what the weapon is. SP
Our crit fumble chart includes a number of "oops" possibilities, from merely going offbalance and losing your next attack, to drawing an AOA, to dropping your weapon, hitting yourself or an ally, etc. The first two outcomes are by far the most likely on the chart, but we did have one near-death recently when the party wizard hit her downed comrade in the head after winding up for a big swing at an opponent.
I haven't played with this stuff much in real life, so I have a question--are there any two-weapon fighting styles that involve using one weapon to parry, deflect, or trap an opponent's weapon with the larger blade, then stabbing the opponent (whose single blade is now safely out of the way) with a dagger or short sword?
As far as parrying two-handed weapons with one-handed weapons, with any lighter blade, the main point of parrying is to deflect your opponent's blade while maneuvering out of the way. You just need to to deflect it a little bit, if you're lightly armored and maneuverable, to get your body out of the way of the cut. Of course it's hard to deflect a greatsword very much with a rapier, but then the greatsword is moving slowly enough so that you have time to anticipate the cut and move more before the stroke arrives. If you use your rapier at all, it is only to slap the greatsword a bit and deflect it that extra inch you need to duck under or jump aside. (This is true for using a shield as well--a down cut from a greatsword or great axe directly on your shield is liable to cut through shield, arm, helm, and skull unless you move aside and use your shield to bat the weapon away as it swings downward.
|
|
A sai is a really solid chunk of metal; not sharp at all though it tapers at the business end. If you hold one, it's like holding a lead pipe, and it would not feel good to get hit in the head with it--hence "bludgeoning" as opposed to slashing or piercing.That's not how Rafael of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles uses them, and I think he would know better than you.
Ha! Shows what you know.
Cooter, anyone? (munch raunch runch)...|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I haven't played with this stuff much in real life, so I have a question--are there any two-weapon fighting styles that involve using one weapon to parry, deflect, or trap an opponent's weapon with the larger blade, then stabbing the opponent (whose single blade is now safely out of the way) with a dagger or short sword?
Yes, there is! An Italian version of Florentine (can't remember the real name) teaches a left-handed fighting style that isn't necessarily meant for left-handed people. It puts the heavier, longer blade in the left hand and, for right-handed people, teaches to thrust with the right-hand dagger while parrying with the main blade. It's a fun style and EXTREMELY difficult to fight against if you're not left-handed. If you're right-handed and facing a left-handed opponent, all their defense is focused on the side that you're trying to swing at!
|
|
I haven't played with this stuff much in real life, so I have a question--are there any two-weapon fighting styles that involve using one weapon to parry, deflect, or trap an opponent's weapon with the larger blade, then stabbing the opponent (whose single blade is now safely out of the way) with a dagger or short sword?
Take a look at some of the weapons manuals from Renaissance Europe. That's a fairly standard move in rapier and main gauche fighting. (There are also styles that recommend binding the blade and striking with the lantern* as a possible move. Period combat manuals are pretty interesting.)
As far as parrying two-handed weapons with one-handed weapons, with any lighter blade, the main point of parrying is to deflect your opponent's blade while maneuvering out of the way.
True with any weapon or shield, not just light weapons. Absorbing the force of your opponent's blow squarely, whether on a held weapon or shield, on armor, or on bare flesh, is a very bad idea. You want to let your opponent use his energy to stop his own weapon, not your energy or flesh. Also, a weapon capable of stopping a blow squarely is heavy enough to require an appreciable amount of energy to move, so you want to move it as little as possible. Finally, solid contact between weapons can damage weapons, so that's another reason to avoid a solid block and go for a minimal deflection instead.
You just need to to deflect it a little bit, if you're lightly armored and maneuverable, to get your body out of the way of the cut.
Even in heavy armor, a small deflection is all that is usually necessary. Armor is designed to let glancing blows, well, glance.
Of course it's hard to deflect a greatsword very much with a rapier, but then the greatsword is moving slowly enough so that you have time to anticipate the cut and move more before the stroke arrives.
Less true than you probably think. Artists impressions notwithstanding, you don't swing a greatsword like a baseball bat if you want to live to land a blow. Two-handed swords are usually swung through a much smaller arc than one-handed swords used with a shield. As a result, the blows can be very quick.
If you use your rapier at all, it is only to slap the greatsword a bit and deflect it that extra inch you need to duck under or jump aside. (This is true for using a shield as well--a down cut from a greatsword or great axe directly on your shield is liable to cut through shield, arm, helm, and skull unless you move aside and use your shield to bat the weapon away as it swings downward.
It's really quite hard to cut through a shield or any sort of armor. If you've ever cut wood with an axe, you know that it's quite difficult to cut deeply into wood across the grain, and armor is usually even more resistant to cutting. You might well transfer enough energy through the shield and armor to debilitate your target, though, if you hit hard enough and squarely enough. Even quilted (cloth) armor is quite difficult to cut through, though it transfers energy better than its wearers would prefer (see also chain).
The big advantage of a rapier over a greatsword is reach. Practically, a rapier has a reach advantage of a yard or more over a two-handed sword. You have to get past the threat range of the rapier to effectively use the two-hander. It's the greatsword user that will be doing the beating**.
A final point, addressing another common misconception: Two-handed weapons, whether greatswords, spears, halberds, or whatever, do not take up much horizontal space to use to full effect. If you swing them through 180 degrees or more, you leave yourself too open to preemptive attacks by your opponent, so such long-arc swings are unusual. Five horizontal feet is plenty of space for effective use, and less than that is necessary for weapons like spears (though you want space behind you with a spear).
* Dueling has often been illegal, so duels were often at night. One fairly common style involved rapier and lantern.
** A "beat" is a blow to a blade to move it offline and negate its threat for long enough to attack.
A sai is a really solid chunk of metal; not sharp at all though it tapers at the business end. If you hold one, it's like holding a lead pipe, and it would not feel good to get hit in the head with it--hence "bludgeoning" as opposed to slashing or piercing.That's not how Rafael of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles uses them, and I think he would know better than you.
For what it's worth, I have a martial artist friend who, when prompted "Sai -- stabbity or crunch?" responded "crunch, but with the pommel, not the blade." They are, apparently, for sword-breaking and punching strikes. So yes, bludgeoning only, and Raphael was mistaken.
Or, as she quotes from a text on the things:
the point may be sharp and used for killer blows at the base of the neck or between the eyes, but it predominantly used to block the opponent's weapon. the pommel is designed to allow for a powerful retaliation since a sai wielder is often caught in the defensive.
I mean paired weapons are used in one of two ways:
1) You use your wakizashi/main gauche/dagger as a defensive weapon in Musashi/European style, in which case I think it should count as a buckler or small shield, or
2)you use them both to attack with, in which case you are most likely going to strike with both weapons nearly simultanously, otherwise what's the point?
My only real-life experience is with paired sticks (what 1e would have called "jo sticks"), and with those you don't have to "choose an option;" you kind of automatically strike and/or baffle/deflect as the situation shifts. On the offensive, I often find myself feinting with one and striking with the other (almost like a boxer's jab). Granted, I'm sure formalized rapier-and-main-gauche styles would differ, but with a pair of sticks, you're just bludgeoning the hell out of someone.
In D&D, you basically have three options: two-weapon, weapon and shield, and two-handed weapon. Of the three, weapon and shield sacrifices some offensive capability for defence, so for all-out damage you have to choose between the other two.
With a greatsword you deal 2d6 plus one and a half Strength modifier, plus any weapon enhancements and feats. If you have a high Strength this is quite worth it.
With a longsword and shortsword you deal 1d8+1d6 plus one and a half strength - slightly more damage, but at a -2 attack penalty and you have to buy the weapons and take the weapon feats separately. With two shortswords you can use the same weapon feat for both weapons, but are dealing the same damage at a -2 penalty. However, when you have weapon enhancements or stuff like sneak attack that works on a per-hit basis, more hits is better.
If you ask me, two-handed is superior. Attacks of opportunity deal more damage, you're harder to disarm, and you only need to buy one weapon. Two-weapon costs more feats and incurs a -2 attack penalty, but you can enchant them separately, and you can deal favoured enemy or sneak attack damage on a per-hit basis. (Plus, two-weapon is just cooler).