Two-Handed Fighter weapon question.

[Skeith]

Hi, Just wondering if the Two-Handed Fighter archetype is usable with reach weapons (two-handed) like a naginata or a halberd.

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, if those reach weapons are Two-Handed.

[Paragon468]

Yes, you gain the bonus when using any two-handed weapon.

I have a have a similar question though: can you apply the bonus when using a versatile weapon with two hands?

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, you gain the bonus when using any two-handed weapon.

I have a have a similar question though: can you apply the bonus when using a versatile weapon with two hands?

What's the source on Versatile? I'm not finding it on the SRD. A link (using the icon which looks like a planet with a paper clip) would be fine too if possible.

[Paragon468]

What's the source on Versatile? I'm not finding it on the SRD. A link (using the icon which looks like a planet with a paper clip) would be fine too if possible.

Oh wait, my bad. I though this was in the 4e forum. Heh, sorry about that.

[KillianHawkeye]

The word "archetype" in the OP makes me think this is for Pathfinder. Can anybody confirm?

[Slipperychicken]

The word "archetype" in the OP makes me think this is for Pathfinder. Can anybody confirm?

Two-Handed Fighter is indeed a PF Fighter archetype, which allows extra Strength mod added to two-handed weapons.

[Paragon468]

The word "archetype" in the OP makes me think this is for Pathfinder. Can anybody confirm?

Yeah, it took me a while to realize that. I don't play much Pathfinder.

[Jay R]

From a real-world perspective, if it's got a place to hold it with both hands, and has a solid striking surface (not a whip), then you can give the stroke more power with two hands than with one. I can't think of any exceptions.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, it took me a while to realize that. I don't play much Pathfinder.

I don't play it at all, although I've glanced at their SRD once or twice.

This is a classic demonstration of why it's a good idea to mention exactly what game you're asking about and/or place your thread in the proper subforum. It alleviates a ton of confusion.

[JustSomeGuy]

From a real-world perspective, if it's got a place to hold it with both hands, and has a solid striking surface (not a whip), then you can give the stroke more power with two hands than with one. I can't think of any exceptions.

This isn't a fully formed thought process, but i'm immediately thinking of rotational striking as something that'd likely be better off with one hand over two - if you are taking a step or two, turning your hips (the primary muscles used to create force are those that operate the hip girdle, namely the glutes, adductors and hamstrings) and torso into it then swinging the arm into it using two hands would just reduce the 'moment arm' of your weapon relative to your torso acting as a simplified fulcrum (as opposed to working out the force and power generated at each joint working on each bone via the muscles).

I'm thinking of examples such as a punch, throwing a javelin/spear/baseball etc... i'm sure there are some weapons out there that would be used in this way. Although from a more stationary position (standing still) and relying mostly upon the torso and upper body to generate the force, i'd completely agree that two hands is the way to go. So perhaps it depends more on the specific swing of the weapon you'd be using as to whether one or two hands would be better,more than the weapon type itself?

[Rhynn]

This isn't a fully formed thought process, but i'm immediately thinking of rotational striking as something that'd likely be better off with one hand over two - if you are taking a step or two, turning your hips (the primary muscles used to create force are those that operate the hip girdle, namely the glutes, adductors and hamstrings) and torso into it then swinging the arm into it using two hands would just reduce the 'moment arm' of your weapon relative to your torso acting as a simplified fulcrum (as opposed to working out the force and power generated at each joint working on each bone via the muscles).

AFAIK, though, you never want to make wide, sweeping movements - even with big two-handed swords, you want to keep your hands fairly close to yourself and swing the WEAPON more than your arms. Two hands let you twist the weapon harder, basically, moving it faster ( = more force). You do want to give blows power by moving your entire body, but not by swinging your arms straight out etc. In fact, in my experience, you rotate the weapon more with your hands than your arms.

[ArcturusV]

Well, the common example most kids (Least in my generation and location) would be familiar with is the baseball swing. A good cut with it involves proper positioning, knees bent, arms bent, etc, holding the bat already "Cocked" (Never sitting on your shoulder but back and ready to swing). Taking a step towards the pitch while using your shoulders and waist to twist with the swing, snapping your wrists AND elbows at the apex of the swing, and following through in a natural way that lets you ditch the bat and run.

It's not just an arm thing, it's a full body thing. But still being down one arm would gimp you pretty badly. I'm sure no one is under the delusion that they could smack a line drive anywhere near as hard if they were using one hand instead of two.

[Jay R]

This isn't a fully formed thought process, but i'm immediately thinking of rotational striking as something that'd likely be better off with one hand over two - if you are taking a step or two, turning your hips (the primary muscles used to create force are those that operate the hip girdle, namely the glutes, adductors and hamstrings) and torso into it then swinging the arm into it using two hands would just reduce the 'moment arm' of your weapon relative to your torso acting as a simplified fulcrum (as opposed to working out the force and power generated at each joint working on each bone via the muscles).

I'm thinking of examples such as a punch, throwing a javelin/spear/baseball etc...So perhaps it depends more on the specific swing of the weapon you'd be using as to whether one or two hands would be better,more than the weapon type itself?

I repeat, "if it's got a place to hold it with both hands". A punch does not. Also, I'm not speaking of thrown weapons. With two-handed swords, longswords, bastard swords, glaives, halberds, quarterstaves, and any other two-handed weapons I can think of, using the back hand to pull back, making the other hand a fulcrum, delivers a stronger (and faster) blow. There is much stronger rotational momentum that way. And yes, the technique includes hip rotational, shoulders, etc.

By the way, I've used these weapons (or rather, simulations of them in the SCA). I'm quite sure I can deliver more torque with a two-handed blow, with any weapons designed for two hands.

[JustSomeGuy]

Well i guess that makes me wrong then eh! What about a stepping overarm spear thrust, is that weaker than a 2 handed one?

[Jay R]

Well i guess that makes me wrong then eh!

No, it merely makes you mistaken yesterday. Learning something new makes you right today.


What about a stepping overarm spear thrust, is that weaker than a 2 handed one?

It's weaker than a stepping overarm two-handed one, yes.

The only large weapon I can think of that you can't add power to with your other arm is a lance, because you're not powering it; the horse is.

[Techwarrior]

From a real-world perspective, if it's got a place to hold it with both hands, and has a solid striking surface (not a whip), then you can give the stroke more power with two hands than with one. I can't think of any exceptions.

Staves, properly used, are typically used in one hand, with the other used to balance.

[JustSomeGuy]

Ok, ok... what about a rock, a dagger, a net?! Surely something must work! Biomechanics allows more linear acceleration is created though a one handed lunge than a two handed swing (like a baseball pitch i guess, i don't watch it but i'm sure you get the type of movement i mean), although more angular acceleration is created through the rotational 2 handed swing (the baseball bat swing). So all it needs is a weapon that relies upon straight line speed than angular rotation accelerating the tip/head/fighty end of the weapon (like swords, axes, clubs and pretty much everything it seems :smallredface:).

EDIT: Further thoughts - It would probably need to be a light weapon, something that doesn't have much mass for the body to produce force against, ie something that requires more outright speed than power; although this lack of mass reduces the likelihood of it being possible to double hand it.

[Rhynn]

Who says you have to swing when using a weapon two-handed? Thrusting was completely standard for two-handed swords; indeed, actual zweihanders were probably used in motions more similar to those used for polearms (like halberds, pollaxes and -hammers, etc.) than those used for longswords. It seems pretty intuitive to me that if you're pushing something with two hands, you're going to push it harder - if I needed to pierce something deeply with a dagger, and wasn't doing anything else with my other hand, I'd hold the grip in one hand and push on the pommel with the other...

edit: Of course, a second hand on the weapon may also help you guide the point precisely, as in half-swording, which is worth a lot more than putting more power into the strike. /edit

Before making deductions about weapons, you should figure out how they work, first. The history of the history of (not a typo...) arms and armor before the late 20th century is full of historians making deductions without understanding how weapons, armor, and combat actually worked... (That's where we get nonsensical but oddly popular ideas like armor was useless, swords weighed 20+ pounds, etc.)

[ArcturusV]

Well, JustSomeGuy, the thing with thrusting weapons in general is that while you could get more power two handing it, you generally don't need two hands. This is because of the Two-Inch rule, where a two inch deep stab is going to kill generally anyone, even if it doesn't necessarily hit a particularly "vital" spot. That's the idea behind the rapier and other fencing weapons being "Finesse" weapons rather than power weapons. The Lunge maneuver, for example, isn't about Power, it's about Speed. A well executed Lunge allows you to cross about 15' to deliver a lethal strike in about a second. And generally if you're fencing with someone, you weren't dealing with Armor so you didn't need the power to pierce it necessarily. Although since all the force of the blow is concentrated on one point it would rip through armor like chain mail (Though not plate armors). Remember the reason plate armor lost use is generally not the accepted theory of old "Because guns made them useless", but because "It was freakin' expensive".

But that's a whole different thing with armor. Like mentioned, so much of what we "knew" about it was based off false assumptions of people in the past that have since been proven wrong.

[Rhynn]

Well, JustSomeGuy, the thing with thrusting weapons in general is that while you could get more power two handing it, you generally don't need two hands. This is because of the Two-Inch rule, where a two inch deep stab is going to kill generally anyone, even if it doesn't necessarily hit a particularly "vital" spot. That's the idea behind the rapier and other fencing weapons being "Finesse" weapons rather than power weapons. The Lunge maneuver, for example, isn't about Power, it's about Speed. A well executed Lunge allows you to cross about 15' to deliver a lethal strike in about a second. And generally if you're fencing with someone, you weren't dealing with Armor so you didn't need the power to pierce it necessarily. Although since all the force of the blow is concentrated on one point it would rip through armor like chain mail (Though not plate armors). Remember the reason plate armor lost use is generally not the accepted theory of old "Because guns made them useless", but because "It was freakin' expensive".

What are you basing this stuff on?

First, 2" won't necessarily kill anyone, certainly not placed anywhere. (How does a puncture to the arm kill you, unless we're talking infection?) On the throat, in the skull, or on the heart, sure. On the stomach, it may cause ultimately fatal bleeding. Two, puncture wounds aren't quickly lethal. Good reading on the topic: The Dubious Quick Kill, part 1 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php) and part 2 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php) (based on reading historical accounts). Rapier-duels specifically were often mutually lethal, but only some time after the fight. And the rapier was a "finesse" weapon because it was very long, heavy, and tricky to use - the finesse was in prevailing over your opponent's weapon in the measure, so that you can deliver a thrust that denies your opponent a line of counter-attack.

Mail armor was quite capable of standing up to thrusts, especially since it was always backed up by a gambeson/aketon (20-30 layers of textile). And plate harness was generally less expensive (it was less work-intensive) - commoners/peasants could even afford it, not to mention burghers. Obviously, something like proofed white harness was expensive, but cost certainly didn't cause the obsolescence of armor - it was a combination of factors, including, yes, the fact that even proofed armor would not stop bullets at close ranges. Armor has always been a matter of encumberance vs. protection ratio, and once the ratio is unfavorable enough, it makes sense not to wear armor (there was a gradual decline in the amount harnesses covered; first three-quarter harness became more common, then half-harness, and by the 18th century they were mostly down to helmets and cuirasses for the increasingly rare heavy cavalry).

[JustSomeGuy]

I think we just got to the crux of the matter: While a one handed thrust may allow for more linear speed, it only allows as much force as can be applied through one arm. There is a concept of ground reaction force which i'm not sure the direct equivalent of in this situation, but it basically revolves around 'every action having an equal and opposite reaction', meaning that whatever force you want to apply to the target also goes through the weapon and the attacker - so they are limited to how much force they can use through their 'weakest link' in the kinetic chain. This means that although the big lunging overarm throw creates more speed, it will be limited by the one arm in how much force is put into the target, the rest is basically fizzled out by the arm giving way. Whereas the two handed rotational hit will create less power through the hips and torso, but it allows the impact force to go through two arms and therefore pretty much twice as much force goes into the target via the weapon... this also appears to explain why throwing is predominantly one handed (there is no equivalent of a ground reaction force so all the force is imparted into the impliment as it is thrown). Does this make sense?

There was a second part to it, in that just after the initial impact i suspect there is a small duration of 'following through' the hit and trying to muscle through the hit, and having two hands and a stable balance would be better than one hand and an overstepped balance (like the throwing technique would entail); does anyone know if this is the case or not?

Also, not to mention the fighting importance of manitaining a solid defence and not overreaching an attack or leaving openings and junk, i was originally thinking solely of the biggest hit in a setup scenario, not a live fight which would confuse the issue somewhat i think.

[Rhynn]

I think you're spot on, now - two arms braces you for impact more than one. Jay R mentioned lances, and I think this is actually really relevant there too - my understanding is that the power you can deliver with a lance is in part limited by your own body's ability to brace it against the counter-force, because the more you give when the lance pushes back at you as it pushes into the target, the less force you'll probably impart (since we're talking force over time, rather than an instant transfer, even if it's fractions of a second).

There is also, to some degree, a consideration of reach - although you basically never want to extend your arm straight out when you strike (locking the elbow, jolting your arm, limiting mobility), a second hand on your weapon's hilt will essentially shorten your reach a bit, keeping the "front arm" bent (easy to notice with any long-hilted sword). But two-handed swords can afford to be a bit longer and heavier, so you end up ahead anyway, as far as effectiveness at offense goes.