Hi everyone!

I couldn't find anything on this topic in the forum so far (especially since it was hard to find a proper search-entry...weapon and 2-handed are terms frequently used here) so I have to ask this tiny question here:

In the revised Combat Tactics it says for the Bonus of the Crazy Attack
be sure to use your weapon 2 handed too, for that extra +1d6 damage. I was surprised to read this entry and I believe I have never read this before. Where do I find the original rule concerning this possibility?

With best regards,

Aethelred

I have never come across a general rule that says if you use a normal weapon 2-handed it gives you an extra d6.

Then again I have never had a knight throw down his shield and try to use his sword 2-handed, handy I suppose if a nasty Saxon just split your shield.

On the surface I would say no, as it will unbalance the weapons that are designed to be used 2-handed.

The rule does exist in KAP4 but it can only be applied in quite specific circumstances; p.164 KAP4 "It is possible to wield any one-handed weapon with two hands to cause extra damage, even though it is normally used one-handed with a shield. This can only be done when unopposed, and in that case the attack skill is still the same but gets an extra Id6 damage added. Any shield or item held in the other hand must be dropped first. Unopposed two-handed attacks may be done only against foes who do not know the attacker is there (perhaps a surprise attack From behind) or when the defender cannot protect himself (perhaps because he is unconscious, restrained, or asleep). In both these cases a modifier may be applied, but this is due to the circumstances, not because the weapon is used two-handed."

I can find no mention of it in KAP5 though and suggest it may have been dropped due to weapon balancing issues.

Thanks for your replies. Yes, I was worried because of the balance issue, too. Maybe Greg can explain why he mentioned this rule in combination with the "Crazy Attack" ;)

Thanks for your replies. Yes, I was worried because of the balance issue, too. Maybe Greg can explain why he mentioned this rule in combination with the "Crazy Attack" ;)


All hail the value of the printed word!
Because it's certain that MY memory sometimes focuses on an incorrect rule variant that I have used, discarded or even sometimes just considered.
And 2H attack is certainly one of those!

It also includes a weapon that no one has brought up: the Great Spear. That problem came to my attention while doing the stats for Book of Armies.

Here's my story. Notice in KAP5th ed that:
all the 2H weapons do +1d6 damage...
...except Great Spear.
Even the Byzantine Great Lance (kontos) gets +1d6 damage (BoK&L, p 118).

The Great Spear
It ought to have the automatic +1d6 that all two handed weapons have.

In fact, it ought to be clear in the core rules, and not necessarily even mentioned in the individual weapon descriptions, that:
All weapons made to be used with two hands grants +1d6 damage.

I don't recall any reason why they have not had this from the start. I would entertain any reasons someone may recall, or speculations, on why this might have been so.

Using a one-handed weapon two-handed
Rules from the 4th to the 5th edition changed for one of three reasons:
1. They had not work right during play, or was just wrong; so I changed them or dropped them deliberately
2. The editors changed them (the revoked rule about knights having to divide damage in multiple attacks)
3. I forgot to include them in my draft.

I have checked my submission, and I find that this is a case of #2. In my submission, I had:

Unopposed Two-Handed Strikes
It is possible to wield any one-handed weapon with two hands to cause extra damage, even though it is normally used one-handed with a shield. This can only be done when unopposed, and in that case the attack skill is still the same but success gets an extra 1d6 damage added. Any shield or item held in the other hand must be dropped first.
Unopposed two-handed attacks may be done only against foes who do not know the attacker is there (perhaps a surprise attack from behind) or when the defender cannot protect himself (perhaps because he is unconscious, restrained, or asleep). In both these cases a modifier may be applied, but this is due to the circumstances, not because the weapon is used two-handed.

PLEASE NOTE
In general, I support the editorial work done in KAP 5.
Scott Holden did an excellent job to improve my submission, and I want my support on that to be known.
Naturally, as author I have subsequent criticism of the text, but in fact I have never seen a set of published rules that does not have that.