Two-handed weapon fighting vs dual-weapon-wielding fighting issue

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by khorboth

I gave this more thought because it's been bugging me. I realized we've been thinking about it wrong. In fantasy, people use big two-handed weapons, not to defeat small quick fighters, but to pierce the hide of great beasts.

Depends on your fantasy, obviously, but it's a frame of reference to use...

Originally Posted by khorboth

Let's move away from the contest of two humans. Against two zombies with homogeneous, who can do real damage?

Might favor the dual-weilder so long as they didn't choose stabbing-only weapons. Summing damage across multiple hits is often preferable and zombies aren't stereotypically armored, but are stereotypically indifferent to knockdown...

Originally Posted by khorboth

Against a large wurm with DR 6 and 40 HP, can the quick guy hope to inflict a major wound?

Maybe, going for the eye. Depending on how much strength (and magic) you're slinging around that might be easier than dishing up 20 cutting damage. Assuming the thing doesn't also have armored eyes, which it might.

Originally Posted by khorboth

In a fantasy world, the two-handed weapon is about sacrificing speed for having some hope agains these great perils. Yes, the small, quick guy will have advantages if you're opponents, but if I'm facing a manticore... I would rather stand with the heavily armored guy and his greatsword than the quick guy and his daggers.

Depending on how you play it, Parrying Heavy Weapons might also be relevant. It might be possible to parry a monstrous blow with a two-hander, but less likely with a dagger. (You could go for a cross parry, but that prevents using either weapon for more parries in the turn, flipping the defensive advantage to the big weapon.)

[AlexanderHowl]

Zombies are unliving, golems are homogeneous (in either case though, it is the person dealing cutting damage that wins). If I am facing two zombies, I am looking to destroy the brains of really slow creatures, so I will probably try a brain hit with a defensive attack (at a base skill of 24, I can pop open their skulls with an effective skill 17 at Reach 3 with a great axe, which would deal an average of 48 damage after reductions).

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Maybe, going for the eye. Depending on how much strength (and magic) you're slinging around that might be easier than dishing up 20 cutting damage. Assuming the thing doesn't also have armored eyes, which it might.

Is the dual-wielder throwing his knives now? Otherwise we should probably note that some of the higher-reach weapons needed to stab tall creatures in the eye are often 2H

[khorboth]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Depends on your fantasy, obviously, but it's a frame of reference to use...

All your points are valid. But we've gone from "here are the tricks for a 2-handed weapon" to "here are the tricks for a little weapon" because we've moved into the realm where the big weapon really shines.

If large monsters aren't main themes in the game, then smaller weapons have more time in their element. And there certainly are good fantasy settings with few or no large enemies. Very few folk in A Song of Ice and Fire face dragons, for instance.

[Kale]

My wife played a swordswoman with a hand-and-a-half sword and a long knife as her primary weapons. She could two-hand the sword if she faced a single strong opponent, or switch to sword+long knife if she faced multiple opponents. She could also use a standard broadsword + long knife (both balanced one-handed weapons) if she needed to go maximum defense. This also gave her the flexibility to use reach C,1 or 1,2 weapons as needed. Anyone who got too close was in for a nasty surprise when she would fast-draw the long knife and use her rapid-grip change perk to go from 2 to 1 hands with the sword to free up her knife hand.