What's the RAW-point in using a two handed weapon?

[Borri]

As much as I love the idea about my dwarven slayer wielding a mattock or a great axe, as much I see no sense in it coming from the rules as written.

Taking the most common enemy of our games (orc soldier, warg, attercops) with an endurance of 12 as a baseline for my thoughts, I see that I'll need at least two hits to get the baddy down with any one weapon (as long as it's a basic success and therefor no attribute bonus comes into play). Even a grievous great axe/great spear (the hardest hitting non-magic weapons for players) with a damage rating of 11 leaves my 12-endurance-baseline-enemy with one point of endurance after a (regular) hit.

When using a grievous one handed axe, sword or spear (dmg 7), I still need to hit the enemy twice but can use a shield to enhance my parry and with that my general survivabilty - not to forget the higher TN from shields to be hit by opening volleys.

There is also no difference in called shots if the used weapon is one handed or two handed, so there is also no boon in favouring a two handed weapon here.

So I see the advantage of a two-handed weapon only when fighting the big boys with high endurance in hitting them harder - but even then the damage of one handed weapons scale better due to the attribute bonus in great/extraordinary successes (which is also not linked to the kind of weapon used).

So, what's the RAW-point in using a two handed weapon?

[bluejay]

So ... Dwarves with Old Hatred get to add at least 3 points of damage to their attacks meaning that a great axe will do 12 points of damage dropping an Orc in a single hit (quite devastating to be honest).

Elves can get Spearman's Shield allowing them to use the Great Spear (possibly the single greatest weapon in the game) with a buckler.

Spiders have an Endurance of 10 meaning that a Grievous mattack will drop them in a single shot.

I think most importantly, two handed weapons get the highest injury ratings which are very important against the bigger opponents.

In the higher level game, single handed weapons can feel fairly weak in comparison to be honest (thank goodness for Savage Blows).

[atgxtg]

The injury rating is the major advatage.

Also, while initially it might take two hits to drop an END 12 enemy, it is fairly easy for a hero with a two-handed weapon to upgrade his damage to 12 points or more. Typically with one virtue or reward.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, as a starting character, we're talking 9 damage (which kills an enemy in two hits, one with a 6) vs. 5 damage (which kills enemies in three hits...two if they get a 6, maybe one if they get super lucky or have Body 7).

So, at that stage, that's a solid difference on standard enemies. And, as the game progresses and you get to 11 and 7 damage respectively, you also get more 6s (eventually getting one more often than not, and getting two not infrequently)...and a fair number of tougher enemies, where the increased damage matters more (Great Spiders have Endurance 36, for example, while Black Uruks have 20). Even at 12 Endurance, if you have less than Body 5 (a not uncommon occurrence), even rolling a 6 doesn't kill them in one hit with a one-handed weapon, while it most certainly does with a two-handed one.

There are also weaker enemies, with Endurance 8-10. Them, you can kill with one blow of a two-handed weapon, but generally need two from a one-handed one. They're relevant as well.

But most importantly, with tough enemies in general the big weapon makes a huge difference. The higher damage wears them down quicker, and the higher Injury rating makes it more likely for them to be taken out by a single attack (or, in the case of those with Great Size, make it possible to take them out at all).

Now, you might argue that high Endurance enemies and those with Great Size are rare, and that's true, but they're also by far the most powerful and dangerous of opponents, so advantages against them are rather important. And it's on both them and weaker enemies that the two-handed weapon has advantages, so...everything that isn't Endurance 12. Unless you have Body 4 or less, in which case it always matters.

[Earendil]

I agree with the others. Enemies vary a lot: yes, Orc soldiers and Attercops have 12 endurance, and they might be common, but there are a lot of other types of foe. I could see this being a problem if you're always fighting those, but for example, The Marsh-Bell includes a troll with 60 endurance and Marsh-dwellers with 10 endurance. I don't think the intention is that you should fight foes with 12 endurance all the time. Some orcs are weak enough that a single ordinary blow from a mattock will put them down; some have 16 or 20 endurance or more.

Besides, one-handed weapons do no more than 5 damage (let's ignore Grievous, as there are plenty of other Rewards a starting character might prioritise). This will put down a foe with 12 endurance in 3 blows, or 2 with a great success. A two-handed weapon will do 7-9 damage, and will put down that same foe in two blows, or one with a great success (if your Body is decent - using a long-hafted axe will require a Body of 5 to do that, but using a great spear or great axe requires a Body of only 3).

[silverfoxdmt73]

Because it looks cool and it is a traditional weapon/tool of the dwarves?