Two handed weapon in one hand?

[Tyger]

Is this possible? If so, what would be the penalty for it? Conversely, is there a feat (or feats) that would permit this?

Situation is thus: Minotaur wielding greataxe wants to unlimber his shield from time to time, without also having to carry another weapon.

Thoughts?

[Hario]

You can but with the sub-par feat called monkey grip, or try to go up a size category, You take a -2 instead of a -4 weilding it this way with monkey grip, I think you take a -2 from going up a size category.

[Person_Man]

Unless you have a pile of Sneak Attack or similar bonus damage, why would you want to wield a melee weapon in one hand? The main sources of melee damage are Power Attack and Leap Attack. Both are much more effective when you use a weapon with two hands. And if you're worried about AC, just buy an Animated Shield.

[Murongo]

Monkey grip is the devil

Use mithril or something

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You can but with the sub-par feat called monkey grip...

No. Monkey Grip does not work that way. (That's something of a board mantra.)

Monkey Grip allows you to wield a weapon sized for a creature one size category larger than you without changing the effort it takes to wield the weapon. It does nothing to any weapon of your own size category.

...Though I think it might have done something similar in 3.0 days. That's probably where the confusion comes in.

But the new, revised version does no such thing.

[Lemur]

Just have him use a battleaxe, and use it two handed when he's not using his shield. If you're really concerned about the die size (you shouldn't be) use a dwarven waraxe.

Monkey grip did indeed let you use a two handed weapon in one hand in 3.0, but not in 3.5, which uses a different system for weapon sizes.

[Penguinsushi]

Monkey grip did indeed let you use a two handed weapon in one hand in 3.0, but not in 3.5, which uses a different system for weapon sizes.

Its true the wording of this feat with respect to that task is a little ambiguous (or, perhaps, anal) in 3.5, but as a gm, I would personally still allow it.

Of course, if you could get ahold of a huge battleaxe, that would solve the technicality of that problem.

~PS

[BardicDuelist]

Technically, using a large longsword is bacially the same as using a greatsword (same damage, etc) I would allow you to use a greatsword in one hand with a -4 penalty.

[Tyger]

So in the end, the answer is... no? Its a -4 to attack with no real way to compensate? The suggestions above aren't really feasible, as he's decided to go with the greataxe, and doesn't want to worry about it. Granted, a -4 may not be that big a deal, I think he's got a +21 BAB at the moment, so -4 is pretty much small change.

[Scribbler]

Well, with Monkey Grip he could use a Huge battle axe, which is mecahnically identical to a large great axe.

So he can use an axe that size in one hand, as long as the handle is big enough that he can barely hold it because it's meant for a larger creature. Makes sense, right? (I might have to say that a large greataxe could be used one-handed with the feat in this case)

It requires a feat and costs a -2 to attack (and using a weapon that'll make him take that penalty even when holding it two-handed, by RAW), but he can do it this way.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Technically, using a large longsword is bacially the same as using a greatsword...

Only if you're using a variant rule out of the DMG. There's a lot more to a weapon than its damage die and threat range.

[BardicDuelist]

Only if you're using a variant rule out of the DMG. There's a lot more to a weapon than its damage die and threat range.

I agree, but IF you want to, this is basically the only guide to do it.

[Penguinsushi]

Only if you're using a variant rule out of the DMG. There's a lot more to a weapon than its damage die and threat range.

True, but there's a lot more to the game than the mechanics as well. I figure, if you're already in a class that automatically gives you proficiency with all martial weapons, you can justify that (in terms of rules) rather easily...

~PS

[Lord Tataraus]

Technically, using a large longsword is bacially the same as using a greatsword (same damage, etc) I would allow you to use a greatsword in one hand with a -4 penalty.

Technically, yes. However, I go with realism on this stuff. A Greatsword is made to be wielded two-handed, thus its center of balance, etc. while a longsword is made to be wielded one-handed. Thus, the center of balance and porportions of the blade to hilt size will be completely different, thus the greatsword in one-hand will be very clumsy and feel heavier because the center of balance is way off. Conversely, the longsword in two hands will feel too light and the hilt will be cramped, thus making your swings (especially that of a trained warrior) overly dramatic and erratic. So, in short, no you can't use a large longsword as a greatsword for a medium character.

As for the minotuar wielding a greataxe one handed, since he has powerful build (I think he does at least) I usually rule you can wield a two-handed weapon of a size smaller one-handed, but you take a -4 from the clumsiness of it.

[Closet_Skeleton]

As for the minotuar wielding a greataxe one handed, since he has powerful build (I think he does at least) I usually rule you can wield a two-handed weapon of a size smaller one-handed, but you take a -4 from the clumsiness of it.

Minotaurs are large, they don't need powerful build.

[JackShandy]

Technically, yes. However, I go with realism on this stuff. A Greatsword is made to be wielded two-handed, thus its center of balance, etc. while a longsword is made to be wielded one-handed. Thus, the center of balance and porportions of the blade to hilt size will be completely different, thus the greatsword in one-hand will be very clumsy and feel heavier because the center of balance is way off. Conversely, the longsword in two hands will feel too light and the hilt will be cramped, thus making your swings (especially that of a trained warrior) overly dramatic and erratic. So, in short, no you can't use a large longsword as a greatsword for a medium character.

As for the minotuar wielding a greataxe one handed, since he has powerful build (I think he does at least) I usually rule you can wield a two-handed weapon of a size smaller one-handed, but you take a -4 from the clumsiness of it.

I think your points about balance, etc. are accurate. However, I don't find D&D models that level of detail anyway, so I don't sweat it too much when I run a game. I'd probably make the player buy a masterwork weapon to reflect that it needs some customization to work. If I want to revel in weapons geekery, I'll go play "Riddle of Steel".

[the_tick_rules]

i'd say monkey grip would allow a medium character to wield a medium greatsword one handed with a neg 2. you look at the stats a large longsword is a greatsword, except for maybe a slight weight difference. my dm has a bunch of his elite beastmen (his custom monsters) wielding glaives one handed with monkey grip.

[Lord Tataraus]

Minotaurs are large, they don't need powerful build.

Crap, I was thinking Krynnish minotaurs.

[Roderick_BR]

No. Monkey Grip does not work that way. (That's something of a board mantra.)

Monkey Grip allows you to wield a weapon sized for a creature one size category larger than you without changing the effort it takes to wield the weapon. It does nothing to any weapon of your own size category.

...Though I think it might have done something similar in 3.0 days. That's probably where the confusion comes in.

But the new, revised version does no such thing.

Exactly. In 3.0 it allowed you to wield a large sized weapon (two handed weapon) as a medium weapon, and a medium weapon (two handed weapon for small characters) as a small weapon (one handed for small characters).
My DM allowed me to combine a huge Full Blade with Monkey Grip once. I doubt he'd let it again... XD

[Matthew]

Since a Character can use a Bastard Sword in one Hand with a -4 Penalty, I would be inclined to make it at least the same penalty, maybe even -6.