Forums of the Megaverse®

I've had an idea for an optional rule that I thought might be interesting, and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts/suggestions for whether they like it, or how to improve it for balance if need be?

Let us begin by acknowledging that all of my weapons data comes from the Compendium of Weapons, Armour and Castles, because that has a huge range of individual weapons that actually handle differently and make a measurable difference in combat. Each weapon in that book is given a "handedness", meaning a declaration of whether it is meant to be used in one or two hands. This is fine for, say, a gladius or a claymore, which have an obvious and universal way of using them - a gladius cannot be swung two-handed, and a claymore cannot be swung with one hand, they're just not built that way. However, this is not the case for all weapons, such as the Japanese Katana or the European Bastard Sword. Swords like this were either optimised for one grip but could be used in the other without too much trouble, or were perfectly usable in either grip.

What I therefore propose is this: If you wield such a sword, you can either swing it one-handed or two-handed, and changing between the grips uses no actions. A one-handed grip would gain you some reach (my quick research suggests about 4-6", depending on the height of the wielder and the strike being made - a cut vs a thrust) but let's simplify and say, for a human male of average height, it's a 5" difference. But a two-handed stroke can be much more powerful, maybe a +1 or even a +2 to damage? Stacking with all the usual rules for power attacks, physical strength etc.

All this would be meant to work alongside the "reach" optional rule in Rifter #30, which... may or may not take account of the reach difference between 1 and 2-handed stances, I'm not quite sure.

This would encourage, say, a Samurai with a katana to launch quick cuts in a 1-handed grip to keep his enemies that bit further back, but switch to a two-handed grip for devastating cleaving strokes and thrusts.

Well, this seems in line with trying to figure out how to make 2 handed weapons even remotely useful in Palladium. As it stands there is no benefit for welding a weapon with two hands and there are plenty of negatives. Paired weapons makes the use of a 2 handed weapon just foolish. You're parry/attacked to death. And a battle axe does more damage than a claymore, and twice as much at second level. I've always thought that using a weapon with 2 hands should do more damage and be harder to parry. Either crib the 5E rule of increasing the die when using two hands or have some damage multiplier. Hotrod had suggested double damage in his melee combat post. I have seen this in action and I think it's too much. I prefer 50% increase in damage.

-Vek
"Did I hijack this thread?"

Palladiums combat is already clunky, with the number of attacks to the dual wielding stuff. Adding range note taking, while more realistic (i like) is a lot more work for the DM so i wouldn't do it. The only real range modifiers i use are weapons over 6ft long get first strike over ones that are under 6ft (and range increments increasing by that.), well that and how far away they can be from you to hit you.

The way I house-rule it is that 2 handed weapons get double the PS bonus.

While this still makes them less powerful than paired weapons, it's something at least.

I've been lucky enough that I haven't had to deal with the "paired battle axes because I can maximize damage" issue in a while. Probably because the last player that tried it *somehow* managed to come up against a rahu-man wielding battle axes in all of his hands. Still not quite sure HOW that happened.

Don't get me wrong- if it fits the flavor of character, I won't complain. But when you do it JUST for maximum carnage.. yeah, I'll play the "it's all fair" game.

--
GS

Side note for damage, in 1st ed bastard swords did same damage as long swords but were 2 handed. in 2nd ed bastard swords get +2 damage, and i think palladiums idea is that it is a 2 handed longsword, so +2 damage would be fair for when using a 1h weapon 2h.

kiralon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 11:07 pm Side note for damage, in 1st ed bastard swords did same damage as long swords but were 2 handed. in 2nd ed bastard swords get +2 damage, and i think palladiums idea is that it is a 2 handed longsword, so +2 damage would be fair for when using a 1h weapon 2h.

Side note, I really don't like how modern media fouls up sword naming. If it's a longsword, it IS a two-handed weapon. Always. A Bastard-sword could be swung with a reasonable degree of effectiveness either one- or two-handed. Same thing with a Katana, though most schools teach the two-handed grip as standard IIUC. The single-handed "Knight's sword" is an arming sword. /rant

As palladium was based on d&d there was a lot of copy pasting going on

I like the idea of using two handed use of a B-Sword to double the PS bonus best of the above ideas. For several reasons.

kiralon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:14 pm As palladium was based on d&d there was a lot of copy pasting going on

You could say that the PB game system is based off KS's D&D house rules.

PalladiumBrony wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:03 pm Side note, I really don't like how modern media fouls up sword naming. If it's a longsword, it IS a two-handed weapon. Always. A Bastard-sword could be swung with a reasonable degree of effectiveness either one- or two-handed. Same thing with a Katana, though most schools teach the two-handed grip as standard IIUC. The single-handed "Knight's sword" is an arming sword. /rant

You would think, as nit-picky and specific as he got about pole-arms, Gygax would've been more precise about swords.

But at this point, we're about 50 years into calling it a long sword.