Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

Playing and GM'ing a GURPS game set in the warhammer world I have noticed that twohanded weapons rules-wise doesn't appeal very much to the players.

For high strength warriors the damage difference between one-handed and twohanded weapons is just too low to outweigh the lower defense for having no shield, and seeing Knights of the white wolf running around with one-handed hammers and shield just makes me sad.

After seeing the rules for two-handed strike in Martial Arts I came up with the following house rule.

Two-handed damage

A weapon held two-handed will permit the player to put more of his strength in the blow. Two-handed weapons deal +1 damage for each die of basic thrust/swing damage beyond the first.

Does it make two-handed weapons too powerful? Or is it fine in a world that has plenty of dwarves running around with two-handed axes and orange-spiked hair.

And I may look new to the forum, but I have been stalking you for years :-)

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

I'd say +1 to damage per die past the first two (since many heavy weapons sorta expect you to have ST around 15) would be okay. Otherwise, the -2 to parry successive attacks (instead of -4) and +2 to resist Disarms are pretty nice. Between TbaM/WM and Combinations (this being WH40K...), you don't have all that much use for DWA unless you're an archer. Now, Unbalanced stuff is less interesting.

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

Yes, it does, a good way to make them regret having only an axe/mace+shield is to put them against an enemy with a dueling polearm, and, since he have a reach of 2, the strategy will be as follows:
Attack at a reach of 2
Dodge combined with Retreat for +3
repeat until PC is incapacitated
This, added with the new Low Tech shield HP and DR, as well as Icelander extra rules for shields, will help very much.

Obs-If they could afford a ST of 17, a skill of 18, and uses a Long spear+Shield, maybe what you should do is lower the players character points.

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

The extra reach is nice and equalizes things but its not always possible to retreat, and even though a retreating man with a polearm has higher dodge compared to a man with a shield, the shield guy still has higher parry, which should be the melee specialists primary defense.

Weight is also in the favor of two-handed weapons (because of breakage), but for a adventurer, they also have a lot of things going against them. Especially in narrow skaven tunnels or in Imperial cities (where a halberd is a lot harder to hide than a broadsword)

The thrust damage was included for completion, we are currently in the 100 character point range, with two warriors with strength 13 + striking strength.

Can't really see who could make a two-handed thrust damage attack with ST 17+ though, maybe some high strength monsters.

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

Isn't CCoI supposed to give unbalanced swung weapons a damage boost?

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

I was actually thinking of lowering two handed weapon damage by 1 to simplify the rule to +1 per die of damage (instead of +1 per die beyond the first ).

Weapons with a high enough strength requirement to give you two dice in basic swing damage (ST 13) would then get -2 to prevent "double dipping"

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

I really, really wish 2-handed weapons and axes were "better" as well.

Didn't Kromm say if he had it to do again all two-handed axes would be +1 damage?

EDIT: Yes, he did:

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

Two handed unbalanced weapons. Axes, mauls, etc. Not two-handed swords, though.

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

Of course there won't be always possible to retreat, but most of the times will, and these times you will make them regret having only reach 1, also, since it is a dueling polearm, it will be unbalanced, for this reason, the dodge instead of parry, but if they fought against someone with a greatsword, the guy could parry with retreat for +1.

If they have, let's say, ST13, and 2 levels of striking ST, this would result in 2d+2 with a sword, but 3d+1 with a dueling halberd, if they find an enemy with heavy armour, the 1d-1 extra damage will surely help.

Against Shields there is also the Close combat rules, who says that at close combat, you have -DB of skill.

And you don't need to make 2H weapons better in everything, just make them as useful as 1H, with they already are.

Re: Making two-handed weapons more interesting.
 

Well maybe you're right and the duelling halberd is good enough as it is. If only the rest of the two-handed weapons were as useful.

Had forgotten about shields in close combat, but reach 2 two handed weapons are quite hampered in close combat too (they are of course easier to drop)

I just feel that in situations where 1. you can retreat 2. you can swing your giant axe/sword/halberd and 3. you have managed to bring your polearm along, the warrior with the two handed weapon should be at a greater advantage. There must after all have been a reason why people abandoned shields in the late medieval period (my only source for this is GURPS martial arts fluff).

That said I have actually been convinced that my houserule would require a revision of most of the two handed weapon/polearm stats.