New Weapon: Two-Handed Sword (and a new rule for longswords)

The unique One Ring rules set invites tinkering and secondary creation. Whilst The One Ring works brilliantly as written, we provide this forum for those who want to make their own home-brewed versions of the rules. Note that none of these should be taken as 'official'.
Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by Otaku-sempai » Mon May 20, 2013 6:35 pm

Beleg wrote:Depending on what you take as a long sword, the idea about Dwarves and using them two handed could work. The issue is that an average 'longsword' has a blade that is easily 3 to 4 feet long, and Dwarves themselves are only about 4 or 5 feet tall. Perhaps a Dwarven long sword? Although that would require squiffy stats...
A great sword could be upwards of 5 feet long. My reasoning is that a long sword is to a Dwarf as a great sword is to a Man. He can wield it, but only two-handed. In order to carry a long sword, a Dwarf would have to wear it on his back (or hang it from a mount or pack animal). Like a Man with a greatsword, a Dwarf would probably not be able to draw a long sword easily from a standard scabbard and would likewise need a custom rig designed for easy draw.

Beran
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 5:03 pm

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by Beran » Mon May 20, 2013 7:02 pm

As to the "Tolkien didn't mention it..." argument; Tolkien doesn't mention anything about large predatory fish, so am I supposed to assume the seas of ME don’t have sharks swimming in them? The only large land predators he mentions are wolves and bears; does that mean there are no large cats or crocodilians in ME? Just becasue something isn't mentioned in the context of a 3 book (basing only on LoTRs) story doesn't mean it can't exist in that particular world.

I could easily see a great sword being used in the South, where mounted combat is more prevalent...a great sword makes unhorsing a Knight of Dol Amroth a lot easier then other swords.

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Post deleted

Post by Otaku-sempai » Mon May 20, 2013 8:33 pm

Redundant post deleted by user.
Last edited by Otaku-sempai on Tue May 21, 2013 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

LOTR_Nerd
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 4:22 am

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by LOTR_Nerd » Mon May 20, 2013 10:14 pm

Otaku-sempai wrote:
LOTR_Nerd wrote:I would not allow this in campaigns I run since no such weapons exist.
If you mean that no such weapons exist in the real world then you are mistaken. Two-handed swords have a long history and include the Scottish claymore and the Japanese no-dachi.

If your objection is that the great sword doesn't show up in Tolkien's legendarium then I won't argue except to say that because no such weapon was ever described does not prove that it did not exist. And I am not 100% certain that Tolkien never included such a weapon in Middle-earth.

To SirKicley:

Actually, I thought that I was pretty conservative in my numbers, making them the lowest ones that seemed reasonable compared to other great weapons. I think that the greater encumbrance balances out the injury (20) which is also comparable to that of the long-hafted axe. However, if you think that the edge should be set at 10 (comparable to the other swords), I could agree to that (comparable to the long sword wielded two-handed). It must be noticably superior in some way to the long sword to justify its existence; this is why I reasoned that a greater damage and injury were both appropriate.
You twisted my words which I admit are vague,I meant that no such weapon would exist in ME since the technological level of Middle Earth is on par with what Europe had in the early Middle Ages,so for that reason I would not allow exotic animals outside of maybe Harad and the lands of the South.

Corvo
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by Corvo » Mon May 20, 2013 10:16 pm

Rich H wrote: I'd personally set it at 18 (same as 2 handed usage of a longsword) and just have the damage rating as a higher value.
Same opinion here.
Extrapolating from the Great Axe/Long-Hafted Axe comparison, the Greatsword should be damage 9, edge 10, injury 18, enc 4

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by Otaku-sempai » Tue May 21, 2013 11:37 am

Corvo wrote:
Rich H wrote: I'd personally set it at 18 (same as 2 handed usage of a longsword) and just have the damage rating as a higher value.
Same opinion here.
Extrapolating from the Great Axe/Long-Hafted Axe comparison, the Greatsword should be damage 9, edge 10, injury 18, enc 4
I still think that Injury of 20 would be more correct, but I agree with the rest. It is balanced, not only by the higher encumbrance, but also because the great sword requires a great deal of space to be wielded effectively and it would be too awkward to use from horseback.

However, if the weapon was officially adopted with the lower value then I could accept that.

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by Otaku-sempai » Tue May 21, 2013 12:05 pm

LOTR_Nerd wrote:You twisted my words which I admit are vague,I meant that no such weapon would exist in ME since the technological level of Middle Earth is on par with what Europe had in the early Middle Ages,so for that reason I would not allow exotic animals outside of maybe Harad and the lands of the South.
I most certainly did not twist your words. I took both possible interpretations into account and answered accordingly. Apology accepted.

Exotic animals? That would depend on what you consider exotic. I think that a cave bear (dire bear?) would be in keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's canon. I might say the same for lions in Gondor and Southern Eriador as lions were once fount throughout much of Europe. Actually a Bestiary for Middle-earth that covers natural creatures and most monsters is a tome that we could really use.

SirKicley
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:50 pm

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by SirKicley » Tue May 21, 2013 4:41 pm

Corvo wrote:
Same opinion here.
Extrapolating from the Great Axe/Long-Hafted Axe comparison, the Greatsword should be damage 9, edge 10, injury 18, enc 4
I concur completely. 18 is definitely in line for Injury rating. It should not be as hard to overcome via protection roll as a (critical) blow from an axe.



It's worth noting that this same formula works for comparing swords of all sizes in popular games like D&D and Pathfinder. Great(2-handed)swords do more damage per hit, but their critical ratings and chances of criticals are no better than other swords. If you want deadlier criticals (Injury rating) you go with an axe (in D20 they are x3 damage for crits vs x2 for all swords). But axes are harder to get the right angle for a critical hit because the edge isn't as long as a sword's is. If you want more chances for critical hits (edge rating) you go with the sword. (19-20 on a D20 vs only a 20 for axes). This is analogous to axes have a STAFF requirement for Edge, while swords have 10 or Edge. Then if you want more chances for critical but less damage per hit you can go with a scimitar or rapier. This all helps maintain a statistical balance.

LOTR_Nerd
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 4:22 am

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by LOTR_Nerd » Tue May 21, 2013 5:36 pm

Otaku-sempai wrote:
LOTR_Nerd wrote:You twisted my words which I admit are vague,I meant that no such weapon would exist in ME since the technological level of Middle Earth is on par with what Europe had in the early Middle Ages,so for that reason I would not allow exotic animals outside of maybe Harad and the lands of the South.
I most certainly did not twist your words. I took both possible interpretations into account and answered accordingly. Apology accepted.

Exotic animals? That would depend on what you consider exotic. I think that a cave bear (dire bear?) would be in keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's canon. I might say the same for lions in Gondor and Southern Eriador as lions were once fount throughout much of Europe. Actually a Bestiary for Middle-earth that covers natural creatures and most monsters is a tome that we could really use.

Except that lions are extinct in Europe by the Early Medieval Era which is the level of development Middle Earth is set in.Also on review I might allow maybe a claymore depending on how Cubicle 7 wants to handle the Southren Fiefdoms of Gondor but I would only allow that weapon for the men of Lamedon.

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: New Weapon: Great sword (and a new rule for long swords)

Post by Otaku-sempai » Tue May 21, 2013 6:35 pm

SirKicley wrote:
Corvo wrote:
Same opinion here.
Extrapolating from the Great Axe/Long-Hafted Axe comparison, the Greatsword should be damage 9, edge 10, injury 18, enc 4
I concur completely. 18 is definitely in line for Injury rating. It should not be as hard to overcome via protection roll as a (critical) blow from an axe.



It's worth noting that this same formula works for comparing swords of all sizes in popular games like D&D and Pathfinder. Great(2-handed)swords do more damage per hit, but their critical ratings and chances of criticals are no better than other swords. If you want deadlier criticals (Injury rating) you go with an axe (in D20 they are x3 damage for crits vs x2 for all swords). But axes are harder to get the right angle for a critical hit because the edge isn't as long as a sword's is. If you want more chances for critical hits (edge rating) you go with the sword. (19-20 on a D20 vs only a 20 for axes). This is analogous to axes have a STAFF requirement for Edge, while swords have 10 or Edge. Then if you want more chances for critical but less damage per hit you can go with a scimitar or rapier. This all helps maintain a statistical balance.
Okay. Well reasoned. I can live with that. Consider the Injury rating adusted.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests