forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Nothing came up on this when I did a forum search so I am guessing that this has not been suggested before. Even if such a weapon would never be available to a hero, I can imagine a high-ranking Black Númenórean captain wielding such a Great sword.

TWO-HANDED SWORD (FINAL VERSION)

The true two-handed sword is a relatively rare weapon developed in Gondor to hack through the strongest armour and the thickest troll-hide (Isildur carried a great sword at the Disaster of the Gladden Fields). Because of its great length (up to 180 cm), Dwarves and Hobbits are incapable of wielding such a blade. Elves may use it but prefer more graceful weapons. A two-handed sword cannot be used by a mounted rider and is generally carried slung across the back or shoulders, or hung from the saddle of a mount, as it is too long to wear at the hip. Wielders often use a specialized scabbard or holster that allows the weapon to be easily drawn from behind the back.

.

Two-Handed Sword:
Damage: 9
Edge: 10
Injury: 18
Encumbrance: 4
Group: Swords
Notes: Two-handed weapon. Not usable by Dwarves or Hobbits (or small Orcs).

___________________________________

Optional rule for long swords: My understanding is that Dwarves are allowed to use swords (one-handed only?) the precedent being Thorin Oakenshield with Orchrist. I suggest that Dwarves may also use long swords, but only as two-handed weapons and only as long as the total length does not exceed their height.

I would not allow this in campaigns I run since no such weapons exist.

My initial gut-instinct is it's too powerful of stats.

Compare to the Two-Handed axe; numbers should be close to that. Higher edge than axe but lower Injury. Damage should be close to same.

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.

Otaku-sempai wrote:


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.

To play the straw-man here - Tolkien never mentioned a Trident Nuclear Missile in his excerpts either.....

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 damage.

Fair enough. As I said - that was my first gut reaction when I read it. I don't have the book here with me to compare side-by-side.

Otaku-sempai wrote: However, if you think that the Edge should remain at 10, I could agree to that.

Yes, If my memory serves me - (don't have the book handy); "swords" all have the same edge. More damage per attack should be the primary benefit of it.

The Injury rating perhaps a tad higher (than other swords); but not as good as an axe.

SirKicley wrote:

Otaku-sempai wrote: However, if you think that the Edge should remain at 10, I could agree to that.

Yes, If my memory serves me - (don't have the book handy); "swords" all have the same edge. More damage per attack should be the primary benefit of it.

The Injury rating perhaps a tad higher (than other swords); but not as good as an axe.

Well, the Injury rating of the long sword (2h) is 18. The only possible compromise between that the larger axes is 19. The preference seems to be to keep the Injury ratings at even numbers. I think that Injury: 20 is appropriate. On the other hand, if the weapon seems too powerful, I have to agree that the Loremaster should simply not allow it.

What do you make of my ruling on long swords and Dwarves?

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...

Otaku-sempai wrote:Well, the Injury rating of the long sword (2h) is 18. The only possible compromise between that the larger axes is 19. The preference seems to be to keep the Injury ratings at even numbers. I think that Injury: 20 is appropriate. On the other hand, if the weapon seems too powerful, I have to agree that the Loremaster should simply not allow it.

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.

Otaku-sempai wrote:What do you make of my ruling on long swords and Dwarves?

Wouldn't allow it in my game. Sword usage is fine for dwarves, no access to longswords.

I agree with Rich on both accounts.

I was about to say the same thing, but Rich Ninja'd me.

Robert