Changing sword grips
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2024 6:25 am
I've had an idea for an optional rule that I thought might be interesting, and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts/suggestions for whether they like it, or how to improve it for balance if need be?
Let us begin by acknowledging that all of my weapons data comes from the Compendium of Weapons, Armour and Castles, because that has a huge range of individual weapons that actually handle differently and make a measurable difference in combat. Each weapon in that book is given a "handedness", meaning a declaration of whether it is meant to be used in one or two hands. This is fine for, say, a gladius or a claymore, which have an obvious and universal way of using them - a gladius cannot be swung two-handed, and a claymore cannot be swung with one hand, they're just not built that way. However, this is not the case for all weapons, such as the Japanese Katana or the European Bastard Sword. Swords like this were either optimised for one grip but could be used in the other without too much trouble, or were perfectly usable in either grip.
What I therefore propose is this: If you wield such a sword, you can either swing it one-handed or two-handed, and changing between the grips uses no actions. A one-handed grip would gain you some reach (my quick research suggests about 4-6", depending on the height of the wielder and the strike being made - a cut vs a thrust) but let's simplify and say, for a human male of average height, it's a 5" difference. But a two-handed stroke can be much more powerful, maybe a +1 or even a +2 to damage? Stacking with all the usual rules for power attacks, physical strength etc.
All this would be meant to work alongside the "reach" optional rule in Rifter #30, which... may or may not take account of the reach difference between 1 and 2-handed stances, I'm not quite sure.
This would encourage, say, a Samurai with a katana to launch quick cuts in a 1-handed grip to keep his enemies that bit further back, but switch to a two-handed grip for devastating cleaving strokes and thrusts.
Let us begin by acknowledging that all of my weapons data comes from the Compendium of Weapons, Armour and Castles, because that has a huge range of individual weapons that actually handle differently and make a measurable difference in combat. Each weapon in that book is given a "handedness", meaning a declaration of whether it is meant to be used in one or two hands. This is fine for, say, a gladius or a claymore, which have an obvious and universal way of using them - a gladius cannot be swung two-handed, and a claymore cannot be swung with one hand, they're just not built that way. However, this is not the case for all weapons, such as the Japanese Katana or the European Bastard Sword. Swords like this were either optimised for one grip but could be used in the other without too much trouble, or were perfectly usable in either grip.
What I therefore propose is this: If you wield such a sword, you can either swing it one-handed or two-handed, and changing between the grips uses no actions. A one-handed grip would gain you some reach (my quick research suggests about 4-6", depending on the height of the wielder and the strike being made - a cut vs a thrust) but let's simplify and say, for a human male of average height, it's a 5" difference. But a two-handed stroke can be much more powerful, maybe a +1 or even a +2 to damage? Stacking with all the usual rules for power attacks, physical strength etc.
All this would be meant to work alongside the "reach" optional rule in Rifter #30, which... may or may not take account of the reach difference between 1 and 2-handed stances, I'm not quite sure.
This would encourage, say, a Samurai with a katana to launch quick cuts in a 1-handed grip to keep his enemies that bit further back, but switch to a two-handed grip for devastating cleaving strokes and thrusts.