Look, I get it. As balanced currently it would break the game. You could use a Mithral Large Greatsword as a Medium character as just a two-handed weapon, without having to take one of the archetypes of Barbarian and Fighter that let you do so with any two-handed weapon for a size category one size larger than you. Or you could duel wield Mithral Medium Greatswords, without having to take the Barbarian archetype that lets you do so.
But you also have to consider that it is going to cost a significant amount of money to do these things, and if the game were rebalanced to make it cost even more, then it wouldn’t break the game anymore.
The reason why I’m confused is because Mithral armors lower the weight category by one, so logically, if Mithral weighs so much less that it noticeably affects armor weight category, why wouldn’t it do the same for handedness of weapons?
A 2h sword has a grip designed for two hands. this means that if you hold it in one hand and swing it, you have a pretty decent chance of having your hand slip down the handle. The problem gets even worse with something like a katana that doesn't have a pommel to stop your movement. By one-handing them, you run the risk of your weapon leaving your hand.
Armor's used pretty much the same regardless of weight. Big weapons need leverage to swing correctly and not bounce or twist when you hit your target. Also for aiming purposes.
Okay, both of you realize the Titan Mauler Barbarian is a thing, right? It has an ability that lets you wield a two-handed weapon properly sized for you as a one-handed weapon.
So if you have specific training, you're fine. but the concerns exist independent of weight, and you'll need that training to pull it off.
The Sideromancer wrote: A 2h sword has a grip designed for two hands. this means that if you hold it in one hand and swing it, you have a pretty decent chance of having your hand slip down the handle. The problem gets even worse with something like a katana that doesn't have a pommel to stop your movement. By one-handing them, you run the risk of your weapon leaving your hand. Are you being serious or was that satire. Wielding a two handed weapon in one hand isn’t that hard. The problem is mostly how slow your recovery is from each back swing. You’d leave huge openings in your defense.
Whether or not you can deftly control an object doesn't just depend on the weight, it depends more on the length. If you hold an object straight up in one hand, the turning moment on that object (mass x g x cross section x length x length) will try to rotate your wrist. Holding it in two hands, it needs to actually move at least one of them, rather than just rotating them. This requires much more force, and hence, holding a long object in both hands gives you a lot more control, even if that object is relatively light.
So y’all are saying that if a person had a specially made balloon for making balloon shapes being much larger than normal, so large in fact that when made into the shape of a sword, it is the size of a zweihänder, that they wouldn’t be able to properly swing it with one hand just because it is too long?
I’m sorry, but you are factually wrong with that argument.
I'd say a zweihander made of balloon would be hard to swing at all, let alone one handed.
Imagine even if the zweihander was zero weight, a perfect metal that never deformed, had no weight, but still had mass and surface area alone.
The mass means you can't turn and maneuver it effectively without effort, even if you can basically take your hands off it when it's still and it won't move at all. The air resistance adds to the same problem. It's a giant object that doesn't like to move, doesn't like to change direction, and doesn't like to be stopped.
A better question is, would a zweihander made of mythril, weighing half as much, even be as effective a weapon? Lower weight for something that in part is designed around using weight to crush through armor and knock aside blocking weapons would be as much hindrance as help. You're asking for real world physics to justify rules, but if you want to get into real world physics we can play lots of those games. I'd allow it, but drop the damage dice by an appropriate amount. You are now thematically wielding a size large zweihander one handed, but by mechanics I'd just issue you a medium bastard sword using the one handed option.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
When I started playing 3.0, only the DM had the rulebook, since we were all kids at the time. We thought an adamantium weapon, designed for Large characters, had to give a +4 bonus because "logic". The more adamantium, the bigger the bonus. That was wrong, which I discovered when I saved up enough to buy the books. I've never once heard someone complain about that though, not even people in the same group.
Reksew_Trebla wrote: Look, I get it. As balanced currently it would break the game. You could use a Mithral Large Greatsword as a Medium character as just a two-handed weapon, without having to take one of the archetypes of Barbarian and Fighter that let you do so with any two-handed weapon for a size category one size larger than you. Or you could duel wield Mithral Medium Greatswords, without having to take the Barbarian archetype that lets you do so.
But you also have to consider that it is going to cost a significant amount of money to do these things, and if the game were rebalanced to make it cost even more, then it wouldn’t break the game anymore.
The reason why I’m confused is because Mithral armors lower the weight category by one, so logically, if Mithral weighs so much less that it noticeably affects armor weight category, why wouldn’t it do the same for handedness of weapons?
It wouldn't cost that much money, except at low levels. A mithral +3 keen flaming greatsword costs almost the same as a steel +3 keen flaming greatsword but gives a +2 damage bonus on average.
Another reason might be to fend off the giant size sword headache. Back in 3e (3.0?) the Monkey Grip feat was invented. The feat let you wield a weapon one size larger than normal, at the cost of -2 to hit. So basically you spent a feat, took -2 to hit, and got +1 to +2 damage on average. It wasn't horribly unbalanced by itself; if anything, it was weak. If you wanted -2 to hit and +2 to damage, why not take Power Attack, which could increase that range further if you needed to, and also acted as a gateway for other feats?
It was unpopular with DMs because of flavor issues (a Medium size character wielding a troll-sized greatsword looks ridiculous) and because it didn't play well with Two Weapon Fighting. People were willing to dual wield greatswords with this feat, despite the -4 penalty to hit. Or maybe -6 to hit, it depended on who you asked.
In Pathfinder, a barbarian with an archetype that lets you wield a bigger weapon could wield an even bigger weapon by getting their hands on a mithral weapon (if this idea was allowed). How much damage is that now? 4d6? Someone cast Enlarge Person on me. Now it's 6d6 damage. I can have someone cast Lead Blades on it. Now it's 8d6. The mithral weapon is basically giving me an extra 2d6 (+7) damage, and the cost of the mithral hardly matters when I've got enough levels to have an expensive weapon.
Generally I'm a bigger fan of character abilities than equipment abilities. While I may loathe the silliness of skyscraper swords, I would be more comfortable with Monkey Grip instead of mithral uber-swords. Someone who took that feat, or (in Pathfinder terms) an archetype that lets them wield oversized weapons deserves that ability.
The main reason a two handed weapon does more damage is leverage. When you wield a two handed weapon you use a pivot to increase the speed and force of the blow. The hand on top holds and steadies the weapon. The back hand maneuvers the weapon and provides the power. By doing this I can move the hilt of the weapon a few inches but the blade of the weapon moves a much greater distance. Since the blade of the weapon is moving at a much faster velocity it does more damage.
The other important thing about a two handed weapon is balance. Each weapon has a balance point and a two handed weapons balance is not altered by being made out of a lighter material. Sure the blade is lighter but so is the hilt.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Weight isn't the only criteria for handedness. If it were, handedness would go down based on strength score. A mitral greatsword is twice as easy for a 10 Str character to lift as a steel greatsword, all other factors being equal. Giving said character a hypothetical +5 Str belt would double their light load from 33 to 66. So lifting the a steel threatened would be twice as easy.
I assume technique is the primary criteria for handedness. This fits with weapons like the Katana and Bastard Sword which are two handed using conventional martial weapon techniques (martial weapon proficiency) but one-handed with a special technique (exotic weapon proficiency). This applies to other methods of using 2-handed weapons 1-handed as well. Jotungrip is a special training technique (takes 2 levels), lances while mounted is a situational technique that doesn't work as well out of the saddle, shield brace is a special technique (takes 2 feats).
If someone wanted to have a 2-handed weapon made of mithril and use it in one hand, I'd let them do it. I'd merely tell them that the weapon would do damage as though one size category less when it was used in one hand, rather than in two hands. It would count as a onehanded weapon when used in one hand and a two handed weapon in two hands. And, no, you could NOT use a magic item (or feat, or other ability) to make it count as a light weapon.
If they complain, tough. At that point, anyone who wasn't satisfied with that allowance is either tying to do something shenanigan-y or something even more shady. They would get better traction out of me by just telling me what they wanted to do up front.
If you are going to make 'real world' comparisons don't use balloons. Try a cardboard box instead. And then fill the box with stuff that is half the weight. Sure its easier to lift, but generally speaking when you're talking about something unbalanced and long half the weight doesn't suddenly make it way easier to handle, if you plan on doing anything fancier than just carrying it you'll need the same amount of hands.
And we're talking about game rules here, not real world stuff. Mechanically Mithril gives nice bonuses, nice enough that you'd use a Mithril sword now (though adamantine is clearly the best). If you want something that does what you're proposing, that would be the same as coming up with a new enhancement that gives the weapon that special property. And it sounds incredibly like adding Leadblades to a weapon. Or more like you're trying to find a way to get a larger sized weapon so you can stack the effects? Why not just use 2 large (or huge) sized light weapons? Yeah, the penalties are horrible but its effectively the same as what your asking.
My imagination requires that massively oversized weapons be heavier, not lighter than normal. I'd go the other direction and make a "tungsten" sword that is the same size but deals damage as if it was one size larger (like the impact enchantment, and not stacking with the impact enchantment).
I can imagine mithral armor being lighter and smaller for the same protection. Like Bilbos chain shirt, it was no heavier than a nightcoat but provided protection better than a iron chain shirt.
Because we'd never get players to use anything but Mithral weapons.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
