OSRIC/AD&D Weapon Tables

[Jorgo]

How are you supposed to tell which weapons in OSRIC and 1st Edition D&D are one or two-handed? Some are obvious (longbow, dagger), but what about the battleaxe or warhammer?

[Yora]

As far as I am able to tell, it doesn't say. You're probably assumed to guess.

[Digitalelf]

You might pick up a copy of the "Arms & Equipment Guide". It's a 2nd edition AD&D sourcebook, but weapons and armor stats are the same between 1st and 2nd edition. The book is an excellent source, and not only provides the answer to your question about weapons, but also gives short (real-world) histories for the equipment found within the book.

You can find a PDF copy over at: DM's Guild (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/113391/DMGR3-Arms-and-Equipment-Guide-2e?term=arms&filters=45471_0_0_0_0_45347_0_0&test_epoch=0) for $9.99.

[D+1]

AD&D doesn't say because most players of the time were assumed to already be familiar enough with medieval weaponry to know.

In general (but not necessarily always) anything over 4' long is going to be too long to use one-handed - unless it's a piercing weapon like a spear. A clue to whether a weapon is supposed to be used for piercing is the "Space Required" column. A 1' or 2' space required is either a very short weapon in the first place or it doesn't need a lot of room to use because you just poke it at your opponents. In that case it could still be one-handed up to a certain point, but even spears get too long to be used one-handed. You pretty much have to just draw a line where the break point would be for those kinds of weapons.

Anything that AD&D lists as 80 gpw (8#) or more is also probably going to be too heavy to be used one-handed - but there can be exceptions to that as well. Bastard sword, for example, CAN be used one-handed but then although it's still 10# it's treated as a long sword.

Furthermore, the size of the character using the weapon will make a difference. For my own games I consider battle ax, footman flail, footman pick, long and broad swords to be 2-handed weapons for anyone smaller than man-sized. Since most players of smaller-than-man-sized PC's aren't trying to push the envelope they don't have their PC's trying to use weapons that are clearly impractical so I don't have a fixed rule beyond the aforementioned for which weapons they can/can't use due to sheer size mismatch. I.e., players don't have their halfling PC's trying to use polearms so I don't have a length/weight rule for what halflings can't use.

TLDR; Just use your own best judgment.

[rredmond]

Funny that OSRIC doesn't specify because 1E didn't specify:
http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=8067

But if I remember correctly folks have used the weapon vs. AC adjustments in the PHB, pg 38 as a guide of sorts. I'll have to look for the specifics, but I think the gist was that two-handed weapons had overall bonuses, while one-handed had bonuses against some and negatives against other AC types. I remember these arguments because that's why a lot of folks argue that the footman's flail is a a two-handed weapons because of it's incredibly good modifiers.

Fun stuff!
--Ron--

[Digitalelf]

I've found that a lot of people seem to just assume that because it's a "footman's" weapon, that it is used one handed. This is an incorrect assumption... A footman's flail IS a two handed weapon, while the horsemen's flail is a one handed weapon (the reason being, that it is easier to wield a one handed weapon while mounted); otherwise there would be no reason for a distinction between the two.

I do not base this on my opinion, but instead upon this picture: medieval footman's flail (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Arte_De_Athletica_2b.jpg), which happens to be backed up in-game by the 2e book I mentioned in my previous post.

[Thrudd]

I've found that a lot of people seem to just assume that because it's a "footman's" weapon, that it is used one handed. This is an incorrect assumption... A footman's flail IS a two handed weapon, while the horsemen's flail is a one handed weapon (the reason being, that it is easier to wield a one handed weapon while mounted); otherwise there would be no reason for a distinction between the two.

I do not base this on my opinion, but instead upon this picture: medieval footman's flail (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Arte_De_Athletica_2b.jpg), which happens to be backed up in-game by the 2e book I mentioned in my previous post.

Yep. Use this list of weapons as an incentive to do some historical research. Not sure what a weapon is? Internet search, and try to find some videos of people recreating their use on youtube. That's the best way to adjudicate your game, anyway - by practical knowledge rather than by trying to interpret the rules as written.

[huginn]

I've found that a lot of people seem to just assume that because it's a "footman's" weapon, that it is used one handed. This is an incorrect assumption... A footman's flail IS a two handed weapon, while the horsemen's flail is a one handed weapon (the reason being, that it is easier to wield a one handed weapon while mounted); otherwise there would be no reason for a distinction between the two.

I do not base this on my opinion, but instead upon this picture: medieval footman's flail (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Arte_De_Athletica_2b.jpg), which happens to be backed up in-game by the 2e book I mentioned in my previous post.

I heard many discussions about flails over the years. One comment is the flails shown in the picture you posted is an improvised weapon, it was designed for farming not fighting. This would lead to discussions about must the footman's flail be two handled if was redesigned for fighting instead of farming along with is the flails a weapon practical or even used that much

[Knaight]

I heard many discussions about flails over the years. One comment is the flails shown in the picture you posted is an improvised weapon, it was designed for farming not fighting. This would lead to discussions about must the footman's flail be two handled if was redesigned for fighting instead of farming along with is the flails a weapon practical or even used that much

Which then inevitably turns into a whole bunch of people familiar with Western Europe exclusively coming to the conclusion that it doesn't really have much historical basis, right up until someone who's knowledge is geared more towards Czechoslovakia comes in with information.

[Yora]

Flails did exist. But I am quite convinced that those in late- and post-medieval images are only based on verbal description and don't look like the real thing from eastern Europe. And all the morningstars on a chain pieces on display are based on those illustrations and were not used in actual fighting. Maybe people occasionally sparred with them and the odd soldier here and there might even have tried to take one into a real battle, but those never caught on as an accepted option in the medieval arsenal.
Evidence is spotty, but that seems to be the most likely interpretation of the conflicting evidence.

[D+1]

...and all the historical evidence in the world means doodly squat in a magical fantasy world that has weapons that are as mixed and historically questionable as AD&D without even beginning to pass judgment on the accuracy of the DATA that the game gives those weapons and the mechanics of the combat engine that brings all of it together.

Pick whatever you want it to be using whatever justifications you like. Note it. Let the players know. Profit.