One-handed or two-handed weapons?

[Withywarlock]

I wrote an article on the subject of single, one-handed weapon proficiency appreciation (ooh matron) some years ago in a knock-off 'The Angry GM' style, and I stand by what I said. Video games are terrible at the roleplaying aspect of using one's hands, and it's one of the missing components in conversation about whether first or third person is more immersive (a topic that can be discussed elsewhere.) What I mean by this is having a single one handed weapon means you can:

• Open a door
• Quaff a potion
• Throw dirt into an enemy's face
• Throw ball bearings on the floor
• Pull something
• Push something

The exception to this usefulness is races with prehensile tails such as tieflings, cat-likes or dragons, or trunks in the case of Dungeons & Dragons' elphant-like loxodons. Meaning that while your hand(s) are exposed, you can use your tail to pick pockets, cast spells, or signal to others.

So, one-handed weapons are my favourite when video games aren't cack at implementing them. They almost always have to be dual-wielded though, which isn't as cool as it used to be, and it usually requires some skill/talent point investment before your character can begin to see the benefits, by which point you realise archery's overpowered because it is in every RPG.

As for two handed weapons, I find they're at their most useful in a battlefield more than a tactical situation. They're great shock-and-awe weapons in either a solo or mass warfare environment, but are clumsy enough to make longer close quarters combat difficult. The spear and quarterstaff, my favourite sorts of weapon, have this exact problem: combatants need to be kept at the tip for it to be effective. Every inch that polearm affords you is useless if anyone has passed it. But again, video games are awful at demonstrating this, because melee combatants will always close the gap whether or not they will survive. Just about the only kind of game that will punish you for not keeping a distance with a greatsword or pike is a game aiming for authenticity such as Kingdom Come: Deliverance where you can't get the heft and momentum in your strike in close quarters.

I suppose this is more a criticism of video game implementations than weapons and styles because they each have their merits; it's the design that does not. In most RPGs I see the two-handers doing the most damage, and it's probably because it's a lot easier to calculate the damage and speed, and then balance it, than two weapons that may have vastly different properties (Fable was one of the first games to my knowledge which properly explained the differences in weapon types.)

So, let's answer your question. I prefer single-handed weapons because I have one hand free, and we've come a long enough way from The Elder Scrolls: Arena to where we no longer have to meekly waft our blades at our enemies, but now we can do so whilst drinking a potion. It's a shame most RPGs haven't yet got the message. In a multiplayer game though, I want to roll through people. Put me in heavy armour, give me a claymore (either the sword or explosive) and launch me at a fortified line of spearmen.

[Reality vs Adventure]

18 minutes ago, Withywarlock said:

I wrote an article on the subject of single, one-handed weapon proficiency appreciation (ooh matron) some years ago in a knock-off 'The Angry GM' style, and I stand by what I said. Video games are terrible at the roleplaying aspect of using one's hands, and it's one of the missing components in conversation about whether first or third person is more immersive (a topic that can be discussed elsewhere.) What I mean by this is having a single one handed weapon means you can:

• Open a door
• Quaff a potion
• Throw dirt into an enemy's face
• Throw ball bearings on the floor
• Pull something
• Push something

The exception to this usefulness is races with prehensile tails such as tieflings, cat-likes or dragons, or trunks in the case of Dungeons & Dragons' elphant-like loxodons. Meaning that while your hand(s) are exposed, you can use your tail to pick pockets, cast spells, or signal to others.

So, one-handed weapons are my favourite when video games aren't cack at implementing them. They almost always have to be dual-wielded though, which isn't as cool as it used to be, and it usually requires some skill/talent point investment before your character can begin to see the benefits, by which point you realise archery's overpowered because it is in every RPG.

As for two handed weapons, I find they're at their most useful in a battlefield more than a tactical situation. They're great shock-and-awe weapons in either a solo or mass warfare environment, but are clumsy enough to make longer close quarters combat difficult. The spear and quarterstaff, my favourite sorts of weapon, have this exact problem: combatants need to be kept at the tip for it to be effective. Every inch that polearm affords you is useless if anyone has passed it. But again, video games are awful at demonstrating this, because melee combatants will always close the gap whether or not they will survive. Just about the only kind of game that will punish you for not keeping a distance with a greatsword or pike is a game aiming for authenticity such as Kingdom Come: Deliverance where you can't get the heft and momentum in your strike in close quarters.

I suppose this is more a criticism of video game implementations than weapons and styles because they each have their merits; it's the design that does not. In most RPGs I see the two-handers doing the most damage, and it's probably because it's a lot easier to calculate the damage and speed, and then balance it, than two weapons that may have vastly different properties (Fable was one of the first games to my knowledge which properly explained the differences in weapon types.)

So, let's answer your question. I prefer single-handed weapons because I have one hand free, and we've come a long enough way from The Elder Scrolls: Arena to where we no longer have to meekly waft our blades at our enemies, but now we can do so whilst drinking a potion. It's a shame most RPGs haven't yet got the message. In a multiplayer game though, I want to roll through people. Put me in heavy armour, give me a claymore (either the sword or explosive) and launch me at a fortified line of spearmen.

I also like using spears and staffs and you are right that AI doesn't usually take into consideration close quarter combat when the enemy gets within reach beyond the effective zone of the spear. That's when you bust out the daggers! 

[Withywarlock]

2 minutes ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

I also like using spears and staffs and you are right that AI doesn't usually take into consideration close quarter combat when the enemy gets within reach beyond the effective zone of the spear. That's when you bust out the daggers! 

Quite right! One scene in Game of Thrones I particularly like is where sellsword Bronn, threatened by Cersei's kingsguard, is about to draw his dagger and slice the two elite bodyguards' throats before they can draw their longswords in but a single step. I'd still rather have mechanics where I can keep an enemy at the end of a spear, and it do different levels of damage depending on which end of said stick I'm hitting the enemy with, and then following that, mechanics where dropping the weapon and drawing another isn't just a one-and-done thing (or at the very least, bonuses to weaker but more situationally appropriate weapons such as the dagger.)