Would you have a problem with this?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Would you allow a character to fluff him as using a two handed weapon in one hand because he is just that good/strong while giving him the mechanical benefits of two handing? Mechanically he should be two hading so he gets no benefit from a shield or anything like that.

[ArcturusV]

Yes, I would have a problem with it. Because, in my experience, whenever you make an allowance for something like that via Rule of Cool, it ends up being used for mechanical benefits that shouldn't normally apply later on because "Well... I AM just using one hand, clearly I have an empty hand so I can...."

Like... climbing up a wall/ladder and still being able to attack an enemy with their greatsword even though they'd fall off if they were only using their feet to hold onto the wall.

There's always something that ends up coming to bite you in the ass about it eventually.

[mucco]

All fluff is good as long as it doesn't interfere with the crunch and it has no impact on the world.

[Coidzor]

I'd give the player a big no on that front, but I might consider giving a player strongarm bracers a little early or a reward that would act as such if it was really that important to the character concept.

[Zaq]

I tend to play fast and loose with what you can do with your off-hand anyway (not actually wielding a weapon? Yeah, we're not going to pay too much attention to exactly how you're holding both that shield and that potion, or exactly how you're pulling that lever), so as long as you keep the hard-and-fast numerical benefits as they should be, it wouldn't personally bother me. That said, I accept that we tend to be very free and easy with that sort of thing, and there are plenty of players who would be rather upset with, to return to my earlier example, exactly how Cap'n Sword-and-Board is using that potion of his.

What's the specific context here? Why is it so vital that you be specifically called out as using one hand?

[Preaplanes]

Yes, unless it's being used JUST for the RP descriptions and not as a free feat like a WoW Warrior's "Titan's Grip" ability.

Dual-wielding two-handers? Two-hander and shield? I need see some reasons you can do that besides a high STR.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Emulate Artorias Abysswalker from the Dark Souls DLC, by the point you fight him his left arm is useless and can only wield his greatsword one handed (and he is still one of the most difficult bosses in the game). (His acrobatics and the like can be done relatively simply with Leap Attack + Tiger Claw maneuvers).

Edit: Forgot the video link (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=o47AZkNAYLU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Do47AZkNAYLU)

[Karnith]

If there's nothing the player is doing to mechanically benefit from doing this, then I see zero problems with it. And if he's playing a character who doesn't use his other arm, then that ought to be the case.

[GolemsVoice]

If your DM and fellow players are ok with that, it's ok for you :smallsmile:

As for myself if I were DM, hm. If you'd guarantee that this is ONLY for flavor, sure, why not. However, there'll be no mechanical benefits in any way. If, like the character you're emulating, your other hand is useless anyway, that shouldn't be that much of a problem.

[kardar233]

As long as you're not doing anything with your off-hand while you're swinging, there's no mechanical difference and I'm not worried.

The only problem I'd ask you to work out in advance was if, say, you're climbing a rope or something and have one hand free, you won't be able to use your sword, so you'd need some kind of explanation for that.

[Chaosvii7]

There's a mechanical function for using a two-handed weapon in one hand, it's just a -2 penalty to attack rolls, as if it were a large version of a one-hand weapon. Couple that with the fact that they can't get the 1-1/2 STR bonus on damage and yeah, it's totally alright. It might still be a little heavy-handed to let someone swing around a greatsword and still get 2d6 + STR damage, but the functions exist to let you do that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The only problem I'd ask you to work out in advance was if, say, you're climbing a rope or something and have one hand free, you won't be able to use your sword, so you'd need some kind of explanation for that.
"I'm a bit off-balance due to clinging to the ladder, so I take a penalties as if I was wielding a large longsword in one hand."

[Waddacku]

Yeah, and considering there's absolutely nothing preventing you from using one of your hand for something other than holding the weapon while not actually attacking, anyway...

[Roog]

There's a mechanical function for using a two-handed weapon in one hand, it's just a -2 penalty to attack rolls, as if it were a large version of a one-hand weapon. Couple that with the fact that they can't get the 1-1/2 STR bonus on damage and yeah, it's totally alright. It might still be a little heavy-handed to let someone swing around a greatsword and still get 2d6 + STR damage, but the functions exist to let you do that.

One handing does not work that way.

Medium creatures cannot weild a large one-handed weapon in one hand, because they are not large.


As for the original question, I would not let a PC do it, because it would break the link between desciption and mechanics. Once someone using a weapon two-handed has been described as using the weapon one-handed, the players can no longer tell the difference between the two based on GM description.

[Waker]

If there isn't any mechanical advantage, it's fine by me. How the character describes themselves is up to them. Were they to try to wield two such weapons though, I'd say no.

[yougi]

Like many have said, it can end up being a slippery slope. If it's only for Rule of Cool, I'd rule that they can wield it in one hand, but that for their combat style to work, they need their other hand to be empty and need to be used to keep their balance or something. So it works for fluff and cannot be brought back against you for a crunch difference.

[Kamai]

Right off the bat, yes. I'd be happy to let them take a feat for it along the line of monkey grip, though.

[Yogibear41]

One handing does not work that way.

Medium creatures cannot weild a large one-handed weapon in one hand, because they are not large.


As for the original question, I would not let a PC do it, because it would break the link between desciption and mechanics. Once someone using a weapon two-handed has been described as using the weapon one-handed, the players can no longer tell the difference between the two based on GM description.

Hes not saying medium creatures can wield a large one-handed weapon in one hand, hes saying a medium creature can wield a medium two handed weapon in one hand with a penalty.

Often times a large one handed weapon= a medium sized two handed weapon. I think its an optional rule put in for simplicity. Like a human longsword would = a halfling greatsword.

[Roog]

Hes not saying medium creatures can wield a large one-handed weapon in one hand, hes saying a medium creature can wield a medium two handed weapon in one hand with a penalty.

And one handing does not work that way either.

If you think that it does, please point out where the rules say it.

[ArcturusV]

The closest I can find is mentions that non-light one handed weapons for medium characters can be used as two handed weapons for small characters. It doesn't mention a boost in damage or anything though. So a Human's Longsword gets picked up by a Halfling, it still does 1d8 damage. But has to be used two handed.

[Greenish]

Seems like a trait to me.
Crippled Arm
One of your arms is crippled and can't be used.

Benefit: You can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with no penalties, and treat it as if wielded with two hands.

Drawback: You can't use your other hand for anything.

Special: If you ever lose the drawback of this trait, you also lose the benefit.

You can't select this trait if your race has more than two arms.

[Edit]: The point is, the system doesn't by default abstract weapon use to that level. You could refluff it, but setting it up as a trait (or flaw/feat, or class feature, or racial feature) saves you some headache.

[JaronK]

That trait would be easy to break just by giving the person even more arms. They'd still have one crippled one, but they might have three good ones.

JaronK

[Greenish]

That trait would be easy to break just by giving the person even more arms. They'd still have one crippled one, but they might have three good ones.

JaronKMmn, but getting extra arms and going multi-weapon fighting doesn't seem to me to be easier than standard charger shenanigans.

[Wings of Peace]

I'd allow it even if it did have a mechanical effect personally though in the given example it doesn't seem to. Hell if you need a fluff excuse just make up some jazz about how he uses the motions of the free hand to counter balance the excessive weight being swung around in the weapon hand.

[Greenish]

Forge of War discusses characters with a missing limb, if only to say that from the fluff point of view they should avoid two-handers, shields, bows, climbing, or swimming.

Pretty useless stuff, but it does have a nice illustration which I wanted to post (and which is probably more relevant anyway):
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ForgeWar_Gallery/105858.jpg

[Man on Fire]

All fluff is good as long as it doesn't interfere with the crunch and it has no impact on the world.

Then what the hell is supposed have an impact on the world? If fluff doesn't matter, then you're not roleplaying, you're just rolling dice for 3 hours.

[Deophaun]

I like how we're all talking about someone potentially maybe abusing a purely cosmetic decision with a melee character as if that would break a game where a wizard can chain gate the armies of hell directly on top of a nation in a single action.

Not only can't melee have nice things, they can't even have the appearance of nice things.

[Mishkov]

Forge of War discusses characters with a missing limb, if only to say that from the fluff point of view they should avoid two-handers, shields, bows, climbing, or swimming.

Pretty useless stuff, but it does have a nice illustration which I wanted to post (and which is probably more relevant anyway):
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ForgeWar_Gallery/105858.jpg

This is cool. I'd make him lose the arm so you can't cheat with the free arm later via slippery slope.

He can get a graft later to "reverse" it if needed.

[Jaikei]

I usually slap a bucket of penalties on to things like that.

"I'd like to reload my great crossbow every round."
"Alrighty then, but take -4 to your attack roll and, I dunno, make a Concentration check to see if you can focus on using such a weighty weapon at such a high speed."

Much the same with my avatar- Djinni with a fullblade, still uses it like an arming sword. Whacking great losses to attack rolls, even with Monkey Grip and similar feats.

[Gwendol]

Would you allow a character to fluff him as using a two handed weapon in one hand because he is just that good/strong while giving him the mechanical benefits of two handing? Mechanically he should be two hading so he gets no benefit from a shield or anything like that.

No, not if he gets all benefits from 2-handing (1.5 STR to damage, 2x PA bonus to damage, bonus to disarm, etc). If not this character causing issues, I'll be inviting others to the (ab)use.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Make it that he has to use the other arm to balance his stance. Now he can't use the other hand to hold objects/climb a ladder/whatever while retaining the benefits of two-handing the weapon.

Ta da.

[Guizonde]

just remembered something: my dm and i talked about me being a combat caster, but i've got a few personnal quirks. namely, i hate blades for clerics, and i like my shields (go on, boo me out the room). to allow me to bean undead and fry them without AoO's (for dropping/sheathing my mace and casting), he remembered some improvised solution by his mentor dm: tie a length of rope from your belt to your weapon hilt, it would count as a swift action to drop it, cast a spell, and pick it up.

then i was looking around for some funny loot, and i found this:

i give you the weapon cord! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-and-armor-accessories#TOC-Weapon-Cord)
it ties to the wrist, rather than the belt, but aside from that, it feels like the homebrew my dm pulled off for me is darn close to the equivalent.

to the TS:
ain't no rule saying your beatstick can't have that for the purpose of climbing a ladder. it could be a solution. also, isn't there a -2 modifier for pulling off using big weapons with one hand? i know that our (recently amputated) sorceror can carry around a crossbow, but she can't shoot it one handed without bracing it against something (so far, a brick wall, and my dwarf's shoulders). don't talk about reloads, the rogue's got it covered.

hope this helps

[Zerter]

I do not have a problem with this and also there is no problem with this. You would need a reason to deny fluff and I have not seen a single one. I would also like to point out that using a slippery slope as an argument is the same as having no argument.

[soveliss24]

I'd like to add a personal example of a DM allowing basically the same thing. My character for an upcoming RL campaign is heavily influenced by Vergil from Devil May Cry, who uses his katana one-handed in an iaijutsu style with his off hand holding the sheath. The two normal ways we came up with to imitate this were Einhander + Single Blade Style + Duelist or TWF with the sheath as an off-hand bludgeoning weapon. Since both are such weak options, my DM instead decided to allow me to treat my katana as being used two-handed as long as I'm only using my other hand to hold the sheath. Better Power Attack, Exotic Weapon Master's Uncanny Blow for 2x Str to damage, the whole package.

As long as the Artorias expy is leaving his off-hand empty and unused in combat, I see it as no different than my Vergil expy using it only to hold his sheath. Enhances flavor, makes your PC resemble the character he's based on. I would allow this in a heartbeat if one of my players requested it.