Oh my gods, they killed Kenny! (Hand-and-a-half weapons)

[Joe the Rat]

Sounds like we should address the whole "Medium blade with two hands" segment as well. Given the range of ideas thus far, I think this will need a whole optional rule packet, possibly with a couple main variants.

Bastard Sword - 2d4 one handed, 2d4+2 two handed. The double die improves the overall damage performance without overshadowing other weapons. I have no problem with the idea that 2 dice must be rolled sometimes instead of just one.

For that matter, I would make any such one handed weapon that can be wielded two-handed gets a simple +2 damage bonus, including all such existing two handed weapons like spears and pole-arms (just for consistency, but make sure npc and monsters get the same bonus).

Coming back to this, with the two-handed adjustment, it works fairly well. I dig the bell curve (I'm a sucker for distribution mechanics). This does need a universal +damage with two-hands rule. The damage by size is a worth a look as well, as halflings will always be using medium weapons two-handed.

I allow longswords to be wielded two handed for +1 damage. That's it. Mostly because this is BASIC Fantasy RPG and I feel even the more advanced options should follow KISS as close as possible, and because a long sword and a bastard sword are both kinds of Arming Swords that come from different times and areas of historical Europe, and both are actually hand-and-a-half weapons.

I've found accounts of longswords specifically as two-handed weapons. In a way this is sort of the Banded Mail of the weapons set - we keep the fictions and misnomers for (game) historical reasons. This is by far the simplest approach, and may lead the section.

The lance does the same damage as a 1H missile than as a 1H melee weapon (1d6) and does one die higher when used two handed, so based on this can rule that when a 1H weapon used 2H (as permitted by the weapon) increase his damage die to the next value, so:

Sword------------Cost--Size-Weight-Damage
Bastard sword - 15GP - M ---- 7
--One Handed--------------------------- 1d8.
--Two Handed--------------------------- 1d10.

Taking this one straight, I can get a bastard sword instead of a two-handed sword, and get the same damage for less gold and weight. Increasing the cost and weight to the 2-handed sword would eliminate the "savings," but leaves versatility. Your other idea - modifying "to-hit" and damage for weapons depending on if they are designed for 1-hand and 2-hand use could factor in here. Rather than a broad mechanic, the to-hit for the bastard sword could be affected by use: a -1 or -2 to-hit one-handed (it's a little awkward), as opposed to the -4 you'd take otherwise (based on the outsized weapon penalty for dwarves and halflings).

(Another idea I am exploring is basing attack order on weapon size - for an specific initiative number, Large melee weapons have reach (and act first) compared to Medium, etc. making the bastard/2-h size difference relevant about 1/6 of the time. But that's an independent complexity to play with.)

---

Taking a slightly different approach, another idea I had was using a "best-of" mechanic for damage: When using two-handed, roll twice and take the best result. Rather than extending ranges, this shifts the distribution upward. (comparable to the two-weapon system from the Sword and Board house rules). So for bastard sword it would be something like 1H / 2H : 1d8 / 2d8k1 (roll 2d8, keep one). This is independent of any other damage modifiers for number of hands.

Any more ideas?

[SmootRK]

In talking about weapon speeds, perhaps a simple mechanic of initiative modifiers:

S small weapons = +1 Initiative modifier
M medium weapons = no modifier
L Large weapons = -1 Initiative modifier

Or perhaps a new (speed) descriptor is needed for weapons: Fast (+1), Normal, or Slow (-1)... or the modifiers can be more or less, but on initiative based upon d6 roll, +/-1 seems fine.

My own Initiative rules uses d20 roll, so I might tweak that up more to +/-2.

A loaded crossbow would be considered Fast, while a unloaded crossbow (takes part of turn to load), is Slow.

But this requires a thorough review of all weapons for their speed capacity.

[MedievalMan]

And the eternal debate continues....

[Joe the Rat]

That was more of an aside, really. Moving on...

[Dimirag]

We can go with lots of different initiative mods but thats probably not the best way to settle this... but heres another idea, change the Initiative die upwards if you have a longer weapon (you roll a d8 if your weapon is longer than that of your opponent), but then we have Weapon Speed, so we can just use the die shift for FASTER Weapon and give a +1 to AC for LONGER Weapon.... but none of this incorporates the 1H/2H idea... unless we link it to the Speed or reach factor...

So, we need to answer 2 questions
1-Whats the benefit of using a one hand weapon 2 handed? They gain accuracy? damage? both? gain one but loose another?
2-Same as above but for 2H weapons wen used 1H.They work as above or they gain/loose something?

[SmootRK]

That was more of an aside, really. Moving on...

Regardless, I like options that apply primarily to Fighters. They need some options and techniques to use, such as choosing to use two-handed weapon styles instead of sword & board (without losing out in overall power).

I posted other such Fighter Techniques like Shield Wall, Back to Back, or Defensive First Rank. I think fighters should have a variety of minor combat perks that work in certain situations.

I am also toying with the idea of special sorts of Specializations that can be learned (and uses the existing weapon specialization rules of the Combat Options Supplement). The idea is that a Fighter can choose things like "Giant Slayer" or "Dragon Slayer" as combat techniques, working just like weapon specialization ranks, except each rank of these styles are like 2 ranks of normal specialization (using any particular weapon, but only against the appropriate foes).

So, a 1st level Fighter might specialize in Long Sword (+1/-).
At 4th level increasing the specialization to the second rank (+1/+1).
At 7th level (the minimum for both Dragon or Giant slayer), the fighter chooses Giant Slayer, getting an additional +1/+1 damage against Giants (which if using a Longsword, is added to those bonuses).
At 10th level, He chooses again the Giant Slayer option, (2 rank equivalent) getting +2/+2 and a 3/2 number of attacks against giants (which again using Longsword gets to add his +1/+1 for the normal specialization).

I would only allow 3 such ranks of one of these styles (equivalent of 6 ranks), and I would only allow the best option of the number of attacks to apply (so we don't have crazy combinations that give 3, 4, 5.. etc attacks per round ever).

So, any flaws in this line of thinking?

Some of these sorts of options:
Giant Slayer (min 7th)
Dragon Slayer (min 7th)
Vampire Killer (min 7th)
Werewolf Hunter (min 4th, applies to all were-beasts)

I am sure more such ideas can be generated.

[MedievalMan]

Looks good to me Smoot. I just use a simple +1/+2 for weapon specialization myself. But if I were to do an ascending scale I would most likely use what you have here.

[SmootRK]

Looks good to me Smoot. I just use a simple +1/+2 for weapon specialization myself. But if I were to do an ascending scale I would most likely use what you have here.

Not really my idea, it comes from the Combat Options Supplement. Just trying to expand upon the idea.

[MedievalMan]

Good idea in any case. I like what you have done. Now figure out a way to play a fighter who doesn't wear armor and only has a Dex of 13.

[SmootRK]

Good idea in any case. I like what you have done. Now figure out a way to play a fighter who doesn't wear armor and only has a Dex of 13.

This fighter should go into the clergy instead! He's going to need the divine assistance to survive.