I don't know how that happens myself, but you can't fight with it unless your a titan mauler or its a hand and a half weapon and you have the feat for it. Its just that heavy.
Without some special ability, you cannot wield a (sized for you) two-handed weapon in one hand. Special abilities might be the phalanx fighter archetype or the special exception granted lances when wielded while mounted.
If the weapon is a two handed weapon one size smaller than you, you can wield it one-handed, but take the inappropriate size modifier (-2).
If you tried to wield a bastard sword one-handed without EWP (bastard sword), then you'd take the -4 for non-proficiency, but this applies ONLY to the bastard sword, not to two handed weapons in general (because the bastard sword is really a one-handed exotic weapon that has the special ability to be wielded two-handed as a martial weapon).
-2 for inappropriate size.
There's actually a reason why two-handed weapons are called two-handed weapons.
Call it an particularly ill-suited improvised weapon (since you can't wield it as it is intended to be wielded).
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be non-proficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
I'd say cut the damage back to the 1-handed equivalent or less, remember that you no longer get strenght and a half to damage, cut the threat range back per the rule, give the -4 non-proficiency penalty and count your blessings that the GM allows it at all.
Edit: missing "it", added bit about strength
It's more along the lines of a character just got their left arm disabled and is going to continue to try to fight on.
I think that's called "getting a different weapon that doesn't require two hands."
I wouldn't. Opens the door to abuse, for example, when being grappled.
Well I am sure the barbarian in my campaign would prefer to fight with his greatsword one-handed with a few insignificant penalties over having to use some other weapons he might need to draw first and wield less effectively when he gets in a situation wher he couldn't use both of his hands, such as being grappled. So, a clear "no" in my game to this question.
Another view: would you allow a wizardto still cast his spells when he can't speak?
The rules don't cover it because the rules don't cover "getting one arm disabled". Combat is abstract and so if you want to make it less abstract then you have to come up with your own rules for it.
With that in mind- if you have a PC who has been "wounded" such that one arm doesn't function and You, the DM, want to let that individual keep pushing on I'd say cut the STR damage from 150% str bonus down to 75% str bonus. Rounded down, of course, as well as to tack on a -2 to hit.
This would account for him having to wield the weapon in an awkward fashion as well as deal with the future issue of "yay now I can wield two two handed weapons as long as I suck up the penalty!".
-S
Bastard swords let you switch back and forth. Also, you can 2-hand a lot of one handed weapons. Or carry secondary weapons for when your primary is a bad choice.
Or, be a Titan Mauler. Or play a race with Powerful Build. Or wield a weapon with the Transformative Property.
Wear spiked armor. With a spiked shield. With a spiked weapon if the DM lets you.
Kidding aside, Spiked armor is great for when you can't hit things. Enchanting it not so much, but hard to complain about an attack you can almost always do when you can't use your weapon.
At best I would give it the same damage, crit range, etc. of a one-handed improvised weapon, maybe a light one (too awkward to be one-handed?).
|
In almost all situations, I would tell the players that a two-handed weapon just cannot be used one-handed. However, if during the thick of battle, a character were to loose the use of an arm and the ONLY weapon immediately available was a two-handed weapon, I would want to say yes.
.
.
Using a two-handed weapon in one hand is difficult, cumbersome, and slow. I would make the penalties pretty severe:
: -4 to hit for improvised weapon
: -2 to hit for the weapon size being too big
: Critical range of 20 x2
: Damage type as per the weapon
: Lessen the weapon by two damage levels
: No feats or special skills would apply
: They could become fatigued after they have swung it for several rounds
It would give the player SOMETHING to work with, but would also push him to look for some other option.
It would give the player SOMETHING to work with, but would also push him to look for some other option.
Meanwhile, I would require him to follow the rules and use a one-handed weapon because he should still have SOMETHING to work with: i.e. all the other weapons he's carrying for different situations.
If he wasn't carrying multiple weapons, then this would be the perfect opportunity to teach him a lesson about why you should always carry multiple weapons.
Seriously, people joke about the golf bag of swords, but it's really a smart idea. Different damage types, different handedness, melee/ranged, different materials when you're rich, etc. It's an important part of D&D and always has been.
At the very least, doesn't he have spiked armor? A natural attack? Improved Unarmed Strike? I'm not sure the last time I saw a character with none of those things.