Another question - 2 weapon fighting

[Deleted]

Is there a rule for 2-weapon fighting? I found Pilotomy Jurament's Musings, and he said he needed a rule, so I assume there is not an official one?

[18 Spears]

Sept 28, 2010 17:57:15 GMT -6 @janderson said:

Is there a rule for 2-weapon fighting?

No.

We didn't get one of those until the advanced D&D came out.

[murquhart72]

IMC, a Dexterity of 15 or more allows one a +1 to hit when using a secondary weapon.

[waysoftheearth]

I do the same, but also if the attack roll is a natural 20 it's a hit with both weapons. Otherwise, if the attack roll is even it's a hit with the main weapon, or if the attack roll is odd it's a hit with the secondary weapon.

[18 Spears]

I like the AD&D guidelines for 2 weapons fighting because it allows someone to do this if their cahracter concept includes it but doesnt give to many advantages. For high dex I might remove preferred hand penalty but offhand always gets penalized. I also impose -2 AC to because the pc is concentrating on attack instead of defense.

[vito]

Oct 3, 2010 17:44:06 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

I also impose -2 AC to because the pc is concentrating on attack instead of defense.

But what if the pc is using the offhand weapon defensively? Like a main-gauche or a wakizashi?

[18 Spears]

I've never ref'd that situation but would probably allow it to grant a normal shield bonus (+1) to normal AC. It would depend on the armor---I can't really see a warrior in plate fighting with subtlety required for a main gauche.

[aldarron]

Arneson and Sniders method in AiF was to allow a second attack with the off hand weapon or with the shield at 1/2 chance to hit. The shield, interestingly, could be used as an offensive weapon but doing so meant losing the defensive value the shield provided to AC.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 3, 2010 23:43:15 GMT -6 @vito said:

But what if the pc is using the offhand weapon defensively? Like a main-gauche or a wakizashi?

Then the offhand weapon has much the same effect as a shield (1 better AC), except that it is ignored by missiles, and the PC may not benefit from the "shields may be splintered" rule -- if it is in play.

[thegreyelf]

If you want one, Philotomy's solutions are the best (all listed in his Musings), but honestly, D&D combat is abstracted, and your attacks per round don't represent your actual attacks, but openings you can find in your opponent's defenses to get a strike in. In other words, during that minute of combat, you get one shot (in the alternate rules) to deal damage. Using two weapons would just be flavor and have no effect either way.

[longcoat000]

IMHO, attacks aren't individual strikes or shots, or even opportunities to do damage. It is <i>assumed</i> that the combatants are doing their best to exploit combat opportunities, which is represented by having better chances to "hit" at higher levels (which is what confuses most people in the first place, because saying you "hit" something implies a single strike). Bonuses "to hit" increase the potential of a combatant to take their opponent out of the fight, while bonuses to AC decrease this potential.

The whole argument about getting "extra attacks" because you happen to have an extra weapon is (to me) pretty ludicrous (please don't start me on the unholy abomination of the <i>idea</i> that a weapon with two ends justify doubling your attacks). I agree that having a second weapon can increase your potential to take your opponent out of the fight, but it <i><u>double</u></i> your chances (which is what having two attack rolls gives you) is a bit much.

In the same vein, a two-weapon style is valid and can be taught to relatively un-coordinated people. Just as it shouldn't double your chances to inflict damage, it also shouldn't penalize your chances to do damage (which is what negative attack modifiers do to both weapons).

Which is why I like Philotomy's "holy trinity" of suggested fighting styles (calling them styles makes more sense as shorthand in my mind). Putting a large wooden or metal wall between you and your attacker naturally makes it harder for someone to damage you (+1 AC with one-handed weapon & shield). Using two weapons doesn't necessarily make it harder or easier to inflict damage <i>unless</i> you're dexterous enough to really exploit it (+1 to hit if your Dex > 15). And using two hands to inflict a blow allows the attacker to swing harder and faster, increasing damage potential (+1 damage).

[jcstephens]

I use Chainmail MtM, and what I'm experimenting with is allowing two weapon fighters only one attack, but using the stats of either weapon as desired. The speed of a dagger for parrying, for example, and the 'to hit' of a sword to attack. This is actually a little TOO good, unless you enforce the "Swords Shall Be Shattered" rule (an attack that exactly equals the original 'to hit' number breaks the parrying weapon).

[aldarron]

Oct 14, 2010 18:28:57 GMT -6 longcoat000 said:

IMHO, attacks aren't individual strikes or shots, or even opportunities to do damage. It is <i>assumed</i> that the combatants are doing their best to exploit combat opportunities, which is represented by having better chances to "hit" at higher levels (which is what confuses most people in the first place, because saying you "hit" something implies a single strike). Bonuses "to hit" increase the potential of a combatant to take their opponent out of the fight, while bonuses to AC decrease this potential.

The whole argument about getting "extra attacks" because you happen to have an extra weapon is (to me) pretty ludicrous (please don't start me on the unholy abomination of the <i>idea</i> that a weapon with two ends justify doubling your attacks). I agree that having a second weapon can increase your potential to take your opponent out of the fight, but it <i><u>double</u></i> your chances (which is what having two attack rolls gives you) is a bit much.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Its unfortunet that some other term like "to wound" wasn't used instead of "to hit" and multiple monster attacks were introduced as seperate rolls instead of as a bonus.

Still, I like to use Arnesons 1/2 chance to hit system on the second hand because it adds a little flavor to the game without providing a doubling effect as you point out.

[blackbarn]

I give a +1 to hit when wielding a weapon in each hand. I assume the character is using them offensively and defensively as needed, striking when he gets an opening, and blocking or parrying enemy attacks to give himself a better opening to strike (hence the +1).

And for ease of remembering and simple uniformity, I allow a +1 do damage with 2-handed weapons and a +1 to individual initiative if not using a shield (just one weapon in one hand), in addition to the benefit of being able to hold a torch, treasure sack or whatever. (Characters with a one handed weapon and shield get a +1 to AC, of course.)

These may not be realistic, but it is just a game after all, and this allows for simple, fair bonuses depending on the character's preferred weapon style. A lot can happen in a round, and I see no need to micro-manage it and add tons of mechanical detail in the rules.

[18 Spears]

Okay sorry about that. It was just an opnion from nobody special.

[aldarron]

Oct 23, 2010 11:01:42 GMT -6 blackbarn said:

I give a +1 to hit when wielding a weapon in each hand. I assume the character is using them offensively and defensively as needed, striking when he gets an opening, and blocking or parrying enemy attacks to give himself a better opening to strike (hence the +1).

And for ease of remembering and simple uniformity, I allow a +1 do damage with 2-handed weapons and a +1 to individual initiative if not using a shield (just one weapon in one hand), in addition to the benefit of being able to hold a torch, treasure sack or whatever. (Characters with a one handed weapon and shield get a +1 to AC, of course.)

These may not be realistic, but it is just a game after all, and this allows for simple, fair bonuses depending on the character's preferred weapon style. A lot can happen in a round, and I see no need to micro-manage it and add tons of mechanical detail in the rules.

As you say, that does have the virtue of simplicity. However. shields, arguably historically the most fundamental fighting tool, are already undervalued in the D&D system. Giving +1 as a two weapon bonus all around gives very little reason for having a shield, but I think you are saying that the +1 for two weapons doesn't apply to AC? Even so, with both an initiatiive and damage bonus you are heavily biasing a certain style of fighting to be superior. Maybe that's the effect you are going for.

[leon]

Sept 28, 2010 17:57:15 GMT -6 @janderson said:

Is there a rule for 2-weapon fighting? I found Pilotomy Jurament's Musings, and he said he needed a rule, so I assume there is not an official one?

There is a Dragon Magazine article about Two Weapon Fighting and Weapon Expertise.
Dragon Magazine #2 p. 30

For every three levels a Fighter advances, or every four levels a Thief advances, he may master one additional weapon and score the increased damage shown on the Expert column. Thieves are limited to expertise in sword, dagger, a combination of these, or the sling.
Instead of increasing expertise in one weapon, a Fighter or Thief with a dexterity of 13 or better may take a combination of two one-handed weapons. Each combination is unique and must be clearly recorded. In melee the wielder may strike once with each weapon or once with either weapon and count as shielded.
No expertise bonus is given when employing this option, even though the wielder may normally have it for either weapon.
Sword and Sword, or Flail & Morning Star combinations require a dexterity of 16, as these are especially difficult to master. Only one Morning Star and/or Flail may be used in a combination.

And then it has a table for the increased damage for each weapon if you are expert.
This article seems to be the start of weapon proficiencies and weapon specialization of AD&D.

[blackbarn]

Oct 24, 2010 5:21:25 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Oct 23, 2010 11:01:42 GMT -6 blackbarn said:

I give a +1 to hit when wielding a weapon in each hand. I assume the character is using them offensively and defensively as needed, striking when he gets an opening, and blocking or parrying enemy attacks to give himself a better opening to strike (hence the +1).

And for ease of remembering and simple uniformity, I allow a +1 do damage with 2-handed weapons and a +1 to individual initiative if not using a shield (just one weapon in one hand), in addition to the benefit of being able to hold a torch, treasure sack or whatever. (Characters with a one handed weapon and shield get a +1 to AC, of course.)

These may not be realistic, but it is just a game after all, and this allows for simple, fair bonuses depending on the character's preferred weapon style. A lot can happen in a round, and I see no need to micro-manage it and add tons of mechanical detail in the rules.

As you say, that does have the virtue of simplicity. However. shields, arguably historically the most fundamental fighting tool, are already undervalued in the D&D system. Giving +1 as a two weapon bonus all around gives very little reason for having a shield, but I think you are saying that the +1 for two weapons doesn't apply to AC? Even so, with both an initiatiive and damage bonus you are heavily biasing a certain style of fighting to be superior. Maybe that's the effect you are going for.

I'm not sure what you mean. As it is with my idea, a character would get a single +1 in some specific area of combat (either attack, damage, initiative or AC), not in 2 or more at once. I know shields are not historically accurate in D&D, but that's hardly my fault, and I noted my version would not be realistic, just "fair" and giving some choice as a game mechanic. I do like the "shields shall be splintered" house rule that appeared online (I forget on who's blog) though.

[Deleted]

I use the rule listed in Meepo's Holmes Companion, with a couple minor tweaks -

Two-Weapon Fighting: Fighting-men & thieves (including multi-class characters) with a Dexterity score of 13 or greater may choose to fight with a one-handed melee weapon in each hand. When calculating damage with two weapons, roll two six-sided dice & discard the lowest die, keeping the greater die result as the damage inflicted. When fighting with two weapons, the character's off-hand weapon must either be of a smaller size than their primary weapon, or both weapons must be of small size (i.e., daggers, hand axes, etc.).