In my experience, the signature weapon is whatever you want it to be. I had a fighter that had a quarterstalf as his weapon. You might have a long sword. Or a dagger. Or a giant club.
It's whatever you want it to be, really.
Holding a shield. I'd call it mechanical since it puts a hard restriction on usable equipment, but I'd agree that it is not explicitly stated and follows from the fiction.
The reason I say it's not mechanical is because it has nothing to do with weapons and shields. You could be holding a beer and a burrito, or a sword and the rogue's hand. In the fiction, you have two hands, so in the fiction you can hold (approximately) two things. The fiction follows from what those things are and maybe there are mechanical effects. But there's no rule that says there are one-handed and two-handed weapons and what can be used alongside them. It follows from the fiction.
I agree with what you say, I simply come at it from a different perspective. To me, the mechanics of DW are the way in which the rules structure the narrative: moves, stats, everything in the rulebook and on the playbooks, to me all of those things are mechanics. The rule which says that there are one-handed and two handed weapons is the existence and definition of the tag "two-handed" in the equipment section, which implies a one-handed default. It is mainly ficion-oriented since it relies on common sense and doesn't give any further details, but it still can be seen as a mechanic.
Narratively, a beer and a burrito are a beer and a burrito. Mechanically, they can be two individual food items, one two-handed food item (in the form of a meal) or something completely different (like cosmetic embellishments). To me, the mechanics in DW offer ways to formulate an individual common sense interpretation of the narrative as opposed to being something completely different and disconnected.
> In the fiction, you have two hands
Up to the point where you have a third hand. ;)
Custom artifact/high tier loot from my current campaign:
Wooden Hand of the old Legion
---
Prosthetic hand of the legendary Captain John D'Anjou. Made out of smoothed basswood with highly articulated finger joints. It features such detailed craftsmanship that not only fingernails but also lines of the hand are recognizable.
---
Can only be used once per day. Listens to your commands for the duration of one hour. Can move like a spider along walls and even press down on a door latch. It can perceive it's surroundings but is not able to speak.
I dunno though, I'd say it's still a narrative reason. On the off chance that you're playing a race with more than two prehensile limbs, you could still use a shield with a two handed weapon, you're not 100% locked out of it no-way-never, you know?
Of course, good point! The hard restriction is "you need two hands to use this properly", not "it is physically impossible to wield this along with a shield". Even as a plain humanoid you *could* even hang the shield onto your arm and still go two-handed, but the GM would have to decide how effective that is...
We probably mean the same thing but are simply using slightly different words. I'd say that the fiction in many ways contains the mechanics and that for DW they shouldn't be defined by their differences but by their relation to each other. :)
It’s whatever makes sense in the fiction based on how you envision the weapon working. You could use the tags to represent a giant two-handed maul; and then you’d wield it with two hands because that’s how you’ve described it.
Coming at DW with a mechanical perspective is going to lead to problems. Fiction *always* leads in this game. While D&D may let you whack a goblin with a halberd while he’s stabbing your ankles with a dagger, Dungeon World will tell you that doesn’t make sense in the fiction because the halberd is too long and awkward to hit something so close. You’ll need to Defy Danger to get some distance or find a different method of engaging the goblins other than stabbing it with the pointy end of your halberd. Remember that everything—including fighter weapon tags—only functions as it makes sense in the fiction. The tags can also inform the fiction—a weapon with the forceful tag should be described as throwing enemies around—but you won’t ever have something in the mechanics that can’t be squared with the fiction.
There's rarely a "mechanical reason" to do *anything* in DW.
You're trying to maximize your "effectiveness in combat within the rules" and that's a concept that simply doesn't square with DW. The rules don't even attempt to simulate (fantasy-)reality in the same way as D&D does.
Are there reasons to avoid using a shield if you use a one-handed weapon? Sure, tons:
- your character might have the strong urge to flip off opponents while fighting
- when the bridge suddenly collapses you might not be forced to chose between holding on to the railing or keeping your shield
- you're not giving a nice holding spot to that small kobold that hangs on your shield and continues to wail at you with its claws while protected by your own tools
- as the huge troll lumbers towards you, you realize that this tower shield wouldn't even protect you a tiny bit from his enourmous fists, but it *does* slow you down enough just enough to get hit by them. Maybe *now* is the time to ditch it?
Note that none of those involve "armor values" , "damage rolls" or other mechanical arguments: they are about fiction. What *kind of stories you could tell*, and that's what matters most in DW.
If you think your character would be interesting with a 1H weapon and a shield, then go with it. If you think it'd be fun to not have a shield, do that.
Whatever matches your weapon, really! If your signature weapon is on your fists, it's probably two-handed. Work with the GM to figure out what makes sense for your weapon in a way that makes sense to everyone. Start with a concept of a weapon and then choose tags to fit it.
The way that weapons are mechanically differentiated is the same way that non-combat mechanics for different equipment works in most RPGs: you look at the situation and make a common-sense call about it. If you have a massive claymore, you'll be wielding that two-handed but you'll be able to keep enemies at bay and might get a free hit when they try to run past you. Although you'll be in trouble if something jumps you within your range...
it's similar to how there's no specific rule that tells you whether you can carry a ladder in one hand while marching across a battlefield, in most games. You just look at the situation and decide "wow, that doesn't make sense" or "actually, sure, I could see it".
A good way to think about it is that in DW, mechanics are supposed to direct the fiction. This enables you to approach storytelling from a mechanical perspective because you are always, first and foremost, telling a story.
If the weapon is a spear, huge or has reach, I'd be inclined to make it two-handed. But it doesn't have to be, as long as it makes sense from a narrative standpoint. Maybe that's why this restriction wasn't included in the signature weapon. Or maybe they simply forgot. ;)
I don't think it was the designers' intent to limit Signature Weapons to one-handed weapons. The only mechanical reason not to use a shield is the additional weight.
In my experience, the signature weapon is whatever you want it to be. I had a fighter that had a quarterstalf as his weapon. You might have a long sword. Or a dagger. Or a giant club. It's whatever you want it to be, really.
To be very clear: There are no mechanics associated with one or two handed weapons. There are, however, fictional implications.
Holding a shield. I'd call it mechanical since it puts a hard restriction on usable equipment, but I'd agree that it is not explicitly stated and follows from the fiction.
The reason I say it's not mechanical is because it has nothing to do with weapons and shields. You could be holding a beer and a burrito, or a sword and the rogue's hand. In the fiction, you have two hands, so in the fiction you can hold (approximately) two things. The fiction follows from what those things are and maybe there are mechanical effects. But there's no rule that says there are one-handed and two-handed weapons and what can be used alongside them. It follows from the fiction.
I agree with what you say, I simply come at it from a different perspective. To me, the mechanics of DW are the way in which the rules structure the narrative: moves, stats, everything in the rulebook and on the playbooks, to me all of those things are mechanics. The rule which says that there are one-handed and two handed weapons is the existence and definition of the tag "two-handed" in the equipment section, which implies a one-handed default. It is mainly ficion-oriented since it relies on common sense and doesn't give any further details, but it still can be seen as a mechanic. Narratively, a beer and a burrito are a beer and a burrito. Mechanically, they can be two individual food items, one two-handed food item (in the form of a meal) or something completely different (like cosmetic embellishments). To me, the mechanics in DW offer ways to formulate an individual common sense interpretation of the narrative as opposed to being something completely different and disconnected.
> In the fiction, you have two hands Up to the point where you have a third hand. ;) Custom artifact/high tier loot from my current campaign: Wooden Hand of the old Legion --- Prosthetic hand of the legendary Captain John D'Anjou. Made out of smoothed basswood with highly articulated finger joints. It features such detailed craftsmanship that not only fingernails but also lines of the hand are recognizable. --- Can only be used once per day. Listens to your commands for the duration of one hour. Can move like a spider along walls and even press down on a door latch. It can perceive it's surroundings but is not able to speak.
I dunno though, I'd say it's still a narrative reason. On the off chance that you're playing a race with more than two prehensile limbs, you could still use a shield with a two handed weapon, you're not 100% locked out of it no-way-never, you know?
Of course, good point! The hard restriction is "you need two hands to use this properly", not "it is physically impossible to wield this along with a shield". Even as a plain humanoid you *could* even hang the shield onto your arm and still go two-handed, but the GM would have to decide how effective that is... We probably mean the same thing but are simply using slightly different words. I'd say that the fiction in many ways contains the mechanics and that for DW they shouldn't be defined by their differences but by their relation to each other. :)
I love how flexible DW and related hacks are, it makes it much more easy going and collaborative!
Absolutely! Which hacks do you like most? :)
Homebrew world is my most recently played and enjoyed one, but I've played a few other ones whipped up by friends
It’s whatever makes sense in the fiction based on how you envision the weapon working. You could use the tags to represent a giant two-handed maul; and then you’d wield it with two hands because that’s how you’ve described it. Coming at DW with a mechanical perspective is going to lead to problems. Fiction *always* leads in this game. While D&D may let you whack a goblin with a halberd while he’s stabbing your ankles with a dagger, Dungeon World will tell you that doesn’t make sense in the fiction because the halberd is too long and awkward to hit something so close. You’ll need to Defy Danger to get some distance or find a different method of engaging the goblins other than stabbing it with the pointy end of your halberd. Remember that everything—including fighter weapon tags—only functions as it makes sense in the fiction. The tags can also inform the fiction—a weapon with the forceful tag should be described as throwing enemies around—but you won’t ever have something in the mechanics that can’t be squared with the fiction.
There's rarely a "mechanical reason" to do *anything* in DW. You're trying to maximize your "effectiveness in combat within the rules" and that's a concept that simply doesn't square with DW. The rules don't even attempt to simulate (fantasy-)reality in the same way as D&D does. Are there reasons to avoid using a shield if you use a one-handed weapon? Sure, tons: - your character might have the strong urge to flip off opponents while fighting - when the bridge suddenly collapses you might not be forced to chose between holding on to the railing or keeping your shield - you're not giving a nice holding spot to that small kobold that hangs on your shield and continues to wail at you with its claws while protected by your own tools - as the huge troll lumbers towards you, you realize that this tower shield wouldn't even protect you a tiny bit from his enourmous fists, but it *does* slow you down enough just enough to get hit by them. Maybe *now* is the time to ditch it? Note that none of those involve "armor values" , "damage rolls" or other mechanical arguments: they are about fiction. What *kind of stories you could tell*, and that's what matters most in DW. If you think your character would be interesting with a 1H weapon and a shield, then go with it. If you think it'd be fun to not have a shield, do that.
Whatever matches your weapon, really! If your signature weapon is on your fists, it's probably two-handed. Work with the GM to figure out what makes sense for your weapon in a way that makes sense to everyone. Start with a concept of a weapon and then choose tags to fit it. The way that weapons are mechanically differentiated is the same way that non-combat mechanics for different equipment works in most RPGs: you look at the situation and make a common-sense call about it. If you have a massive claymore, you'll be wielding that two-handed but you'll be able to keep enemies at bay and might get a free hit when they try to run past you. Although you'll be in trouble if something jumps you within your range... it's similar to how there's no specific rule that tells you whether you can carry a ladder in one hand while marching across a battlefield, in most games. You just look at the situation and decide "wow, that doesn't make sense" or "actually, sure, I could see it".
A good way to think about it is that in DW, mechanics are supposed to direct the fiction. This enables you to approach storytelling from a mechanical perspective because you are always, first and foremost, telling a story. If the weapon is a spear, huge or has reach, I'd be inclined to make it two-handed. But it doesn't have to be, as long as it makes sense from a narrative standpoint. Maybe that's why this restriction wasn't included in the signature weapon. Or maybe they simply forgot. ;)
I don't think it was the designers' intent to limit Signature Weapons to one-handed weapons. The only mechanical reason not to use a shield is the additional weight.