|
Post by discuit on May 30, 2014 11:33:30 GMT -6
Hi again,
So I know a lot of ppl let players using 2H weapons roll 2d6 and keep the highest, and we all know that shields give an AC bonus (plus the awesome Shields will be Splintered rule) so what simple rules do/did groups use for players wanting to duel wield?
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on May 30, 2014 15:12:57 GMT -6
Using two weapons is generally pointless.
It requires lengthy special training to be effective, and ends up being no more deadly than fighting with a single weapon. It renders you easy to disarm, and because of how the human body is balanced it is pretty much impossible to attack with two weapons simultaneously (instead you have to attack with one and then the other and then the first again.)
The two advantages I would give them are:
1. On the man-to-man chart of chainmail, two maces attack as a flail, two swords attack as a two handed sword, two axes attack as a halberd, etc.
2. When fighting with two magical weapons, you get the bonuses from both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 16:31:40 GMT -6
Hi again, So I know a lot of ppl let players using 2H weapons roll 2d6 and keep the highest, and we all know that shields give an AC bonus (plus the awesome Shields will be Splintered rule) so what simple rules do/did groups use for players wanting to duel wield? I don't use those. I give players a choice of +1 to AC, "to hit," or damage. In the first case it's to carry a shield, next is dual wield, and in the last it's a two-handed weapon or suitably stout weapon wielded with two hands. I don't use the Splintered Shields rule and don't invoke it in games that use it, and I don't use multiple dice for attacks. I've no issue with either of those two rulings, I just like my way better.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on May 30, 2014 17:07:09 GMT -6
I let a player use a second weapon to parry (effectively a shield) or to add +1 to attack.
Dual wielding shields is an effective +2 to defense. =)
|
|
|
Post by discuit on May 30, 2014 19:24:18 GMT -6
+1 to hit sounds simple and fair! A nice symmetry too! Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 31, 2014 5:56:48 GMT -6
For "dual wielding" you could give two attacks, each at 1d3 damage. That would keep total damage in line with the typical 1d6 attack and it's a pretty simple way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 31, 2014 7:09:57 GMT -6
For those who really want to wield two weapons, I allow it for Fighters only. The down side is they are reducing their AC by not having a shield. I give them two seperate attacks per round, but both are at -2 to hit. The up side is I allow full damage for either attack that succeeds.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 31, 2014 7:28:55 GMT -6
I think it's important to remember that combat turns are a minute long; they are abstract and one attack roll doesn't have to represent one attack, but represents whatever happens in a full turn of combat action. Because of this, I wouldn't favor additional attack rolls--the single attack roll is good for multiple attacks whether they come from one weapon or from two weapons.
Personally, I don't mind the notion of applying the right-handed weapon on an even attack roll, the left-handed weapon on an odd attack roll, or both on a natural 20. (Differentiating weapons only matters if the weapons have different enchantments, for example).
Another consideration is that the dual weapon character already has better options for parrying; i.e., he can parry with the heavier weapon and not risk being disarmed, but still potentially counter strike with the lighter weapon. This in itself can be a significant advantage.
The dual weapon character is also advantaged in terms of initiative. He can potentially strike first with his larger weapon in the first round, and still strike first in subsequent rounds with his lighter weapon.
Additionally, if the dual wield character were disarmed in one hand, he is still armed in the other. Likewise, his light weapon could (presumably) be thrown as a missile attack, and he is still then armed with the heavier weapon.
Does the dual wielding fighter really need anything more on top of all this?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 31, 2014 7:58:22 GMT -6
In D&D terms, a secondary weapon should be considered ... well, roughly the same as a shield, or maybe a +1 to hit. In Renaissance sword-fighting, a buckler shield, a main-gauche or a cloak were all used as off-hand weapons with a rapier in the main hand. They had different specific utility; the cloak was often used to grab the opponent's blade in the off-hand, while the buckler could be used for bashing and the main-gauche for stabbing. But they were primarily defensive. You were using the main-gauche to parry more than to attack - the longer rapier made more sense for this.
The idea that dual-wielding should get extra attacks over weapon plus shield makes one very bad assumption: that shields weren't used as weapons in the first place. A shield is a big, heavy thing and makes an excellent head-basher. If you had an opportunity to whack your opponent with your shield, you did it; some historical martial arts explicitly train in these moves.
People generally didn't wade into combat with a sword in each hand. It's not like this got you extra opportunities to whack at an opponent in the same period of time; you spend a lot more time getting yourself into position and then maneuvering around their defenses than you do actually swinging the blade. Now, you might get a few more advantageous positions where you can strike with your off-hand weapon, but that's also true of fighting with a shield. We really can't model this with extra attacks.
So I'd either allow them to be used to parry (bonus of 1 to AC) or get a +1 to hit, but not both. I'd also allow a shield-bearing warrior to do the same: sacrifice the usual shield AC bonus for a +1 to hit.
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on May 31, 2014 8:09:32 GMT -6
In my game I pretty much do the same. +1 to hit or +1 AC players choice.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 31, 2014 8:27:28 GMT -6
I think it's important to remember that combat turns are a minute long; they are abstract and one attack roll doesn't have to represent one attack, but represents whatever happens in a full turn of combat action. Because of this, I wouldn't favor additional attack rolls--the single attack roll is good for multiple attacks whether they come from one weapon or from two weapons. Personally, I don't mind the notion of applying the right-handed weapon on an even attack roll, the left-handed weapon on an odd attack roll, or both on a natural 20. (Differentiating weapons only matters if the weapons have different enchantments, for example). Another consideration is that the dual weapon character already has better options for parrying; i.e., he can parry with the heavier weapon and not risk being disarmed, but still potentially counter strike with the lighter weapon. This in itself can be a significant advantage. The dual weapon character is also advantaged in terms of initiative. He can potentially strike first with his larger weapon in the first round, and still strike first in subsequent rounds with his lighter weapon. Additionally, if the dual wield character were disarmed in one hand, he is still armed in the other. Likewise, his light weapon could (presumably) be thrown as a missile attack, and he is still then armed with the heavier weapon. Does the dual wielding fighter really need anything more on top of all this? So it seems you feel two attacks per round is over the top Are we talking about OD&D using the ACS? Or Man-to-Man? I don't think many players use parry rules in their games. I could be wrong though. I agree with your opinion that the combat turn is abstract. The abstraction takes into account blocking, maneuvering, and striking. This abstraction does not turn a secondary weapon into a shield though. In essence, two weapons represents twice the likelihood of making a hit and doing damage. In my game, neither is as effective in doing so as wielding a single weapon and wielding two weapons makes a player more vulnerable to attacks because he lacks a shield.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on May 31, 2014 8:36:31 GMT -6
The dual weapon character is also advantaged in terms of initiative. He can potentially strike first with his larger weapon in the first round, and still strike first in subsequent rounds with his lighter weapon. Thats probably the best way I've seen to handle it.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 31, 2014 8:54:44 GMT -6
.The idea that dual-wielding should get extra attacks over weapon plus shield makes one very bad assumption: that shields weren't used as weapons in the first place. A shield is a big, heavy thing and makes an excellent head-basher. If you had an opportunity to whack your opponent with your shield, you did it; some historical martial arts explicitly train in these moves. So I'd either allow them to be used to parry (bonus of 1 to AC) or get a +1 to hit, but not both. I'd also allow a shield-bearing warrior to do the same: sacrifice the usual shield AC bonus for a +1 to hit. I see your point cadriel and I like your suggestion for dual wielding weapons. Allowing the same for shields gets a little too fiddly to keep track of IMO. Also, you are essentially saying with this rule that weapons are equal to shields and shields are equal to all weapons. I don't quite agree. Would you see it differently if the player was armed with a spear and a short sword/hand axe?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 31, 2014 13:23:09 GMT -6
I see your point cadriel and I like your suggestion for dual wielding weapons. Allowing the same for shields gets a little too fiddly to keep track of IMO. Also, you are essentially saying with this rule that weapons are equal to shields and shields are equal to all weapons. I don't quite agree. I do see off-hand weapons as fundamentally defensive with a rare opportunistic attack potential. Shields are generally better at the defensive function and less so at the offensive side of things, but not so much so that I think it's worth modeling in the D&D combat system. A blow-by-blow system would obviously need to differentiate the two, but probably by a system involving a chance that an opening is for the primary or the offhand weapon. Not particularly. Think about the logistics: is your target in spear range, or sword/axe range? There's probably 2-3 feet of difference. So let's say you have a spear and a short sword. Closing to attack with the sword means you are now too close to effectively stab with the spear. Stepping back to use the spear means that your opponent is out of sword range. You could use your sword to block blows from a second opponent, maybe, which is the defensive function - but you're not going to be able to swing at one with the spear and the other with the sword in any meaningful sense.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 31, 2014 15:21:39 GMT -6
I see your point cadriel and I like your suggestion for dual wielding weapons. Allowing the same for shields gets a little too fiddly to keep track of IMO. Also, you are essentially saying with this rule that weapons are equal to shields and shields are equal to all weapons. I don't quite agree. I do see off-hand weapons as fundamentally defensive with a rare opportunistic attack potential. Shields are generally better at the defensive function and less so at the offensive side of things, but not so much so that I think it's worth modeling in the D&D combat system. A blow-by-blow system would obviously need to differentiate the two, but probably by a system involving a chance that an opening is for the primary or the offhand weapon. Not particularly. Think about the logistics: is your target in spear range, or sword/axe range? There's probably 2-3 feet of difference. So let's say you have a spear and a short sword. Closing to attack with the sword means you are now too close to effectively stab with the spear. Stepping back to use the spear means that your opponent is out of sword range. You could use your sword to block blows from a second opponent, maybe, which is the defensive function - but you're not going to be able to swing at one with the spear and the other with the sword in any meaningful sense. Hmmm, I think having shields as part of the equation may be confusing the issue. For the sake of argument, let's say neither character has a shield. One character is armed with a sword only and his opponent is armed with both a sword and a spear. We are also keeping in mind the abstract nature of OD&D combat and the time that it occurs. 2-3 feet is not a very large distance and can be closed or withdrawn within seconds by simply stepping forward or backwards. Maybe I visualize it differently By your logic, the player with the sword should not be able to attack opponents with spears or vice-versa because one or the other is not in optimum range Overall, the real reason I allow two seperate attacks is because that is really what the player is after. I think -2 to hit (as well as no AC adjustment) is a severe handicap in OD&D for the benefit of wielding two weapons. This simple modifier doesn't require me to keep track of things every round either. But I can appreciate other's take on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 31, 2014 15:48:17 GMT -6
Slight correction. "Abstract nature of the alternate d20 combat". For those who want realism they should use the man to man table and a 6 second or so round. All the rules for parrying, weapon length etc are there to use.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 31, 2014 16:03:02 GMT -6
Hmmm, I think having shields as part of the equation may be confusing the issue. For the sake of argument, let's say neither character has a shield. One character is armed with a sword only and his opponent is armed with both a sword and a spear. We are also keeping in mind the abstract nature of OD&D combat and the time that it occurs. 2-3 feet is not a very large distance and can be closed or withdrawn within seconds by simply stepping forward or backwards. Maybe I visualize it differently By your logic, the player with the sword should not be able to attack opponents with spears or vice-versa because one or the other is not in optimum range Overall, the real reason I allow two seperate attacks is because that is really what the player is after. I think -2 to hit (as well as no AC adjustment) is a severe handicap in OD&D for the benefit of wielding two weapons. This simple modifier doesn't require me to keep track of things every round either. But I can appreciate other's take on the issue. Well, you're correct about the sword-wielder not being able to strike with the sword unless he closes the distance against the spear. If we set up your scenario in real life, what would probably happen is that the person with the spear would try to use his spear to jab at his opponent while keeping him out of sword range. The sword-wielder would try all kinds of maneuvers, feints, even perhaps grabbing the spear shaft to get close enough to use his sword. If the spear-wielder actually had two attack rolls, he'd be relinquishing his dominance with the spear so he could try and get a hit in with his sword - a foolish thing, since as soon as he closes with the sword he's no longer fending off his opponent. OD&D doesn't get to this level of detail. Its abstraction is not well served by 1 to-hit roll per weapon at -2. At AC 2 that would be going from one 20% chance to hit, to two 10% chances to hit. At AC 9, this is going from one 55% chance to hit, to two 45% chances to hit. That makes dual-wielding marginal against someone in plate and shield, and amazing against an opponent without armor. +1 to hit is perfectly balanced with the +1 he is giving his opponent to hit him, though +2 could be justified if you play with shields granting their AC bonus versus all opponents.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 31, 2014 16:13:14 GMT -6
The other problem with dual-wielding is that 99% of people are not ambidextrous. You are probably considerably weaker and clumsier with one hand than the other, and your dominant hand is 90% likely to be your right hand. In a fight, the other person is using all of their strength and speed and wits to try and kill you before you can kill them. It's quite hard to advance and get a weapon to a point where you can actually make contact and injure your opponent. Even if you were only wielding one weapon, you should be at least at -2 if not -4 to hit with your off hand.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 31, 2014 16:22:00 GMT -6
I would give both sword and board two "hands" each round.
Dual wield: two attacks, cannot parry, +1 initiative S&B: 1 attack and 1 parry and AC benefit Two handed: one attack or parry -1 initiative +3 damage
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 31, 2014 18:20:36 GMT -6
Slight correction. "Abstract nature of the alternate d20 combat". For those who want realism they should use the man to man table and a 6 second or so round. All the rules for parrying, weapon length etc are there to use. This is true. I think the OP was asking about the ACS, so I'm going on that assumption. OD&D doesn't get to this level of detail. Its abstraction is not well served by 1 to-hit roll per weapon at -2. At AC 2 that would be going from one 20% chance to hit, to two 10% chances to hit. At AC 9, this is going from one 55% chance to hit, to two 45% chances to hit. That makes dual-wielding marginal against someone in plate and shield, and amazing against an opponent without armor. +1 to hit is perfectly balanced with the +1 he is giving his opponent to hit him, though +2 could be justified if you play with shields granting their AC bonus versus all opponents. It doesn't quite work like that. Yes, it is a 20% chance to hit with one weapon vs. AC2 and it is a 10% chance to hit with one weapon at -2 vs. AC2. But when you are rolling two dice with both attacks at -2, there is an appreciably better chance then 10% of making at least one hit and an appreciably lower then 10% chance of making 2 hits. The second part of your argument that using two weapons against someone without armor is somehow different I'm not really understanding. Most of your other points seem to revolve around realism and simulation. As you pointed out, the ACS does not handle those details well and like cooper mentioned, I think the Man-to-Man rules are great for that.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 1, 2014 4:48:18 GMT -6
So it seems you feel two attacks per round is over the top Multiple attack rolls add an unnecessary complication when one attack roll can represent one or many attacks equally. At the one minute granularity we don't really need to know precisely how many attacks are made; all we need to know is an overall performance across the whole turn. Are we talking about OD&D using the ACS? Or Man-to-Man? Slight correction. "Abstract nature of the alternate d20 combat". For those who want realism they should use the man to man table and a 6 second or so round. All the rules for parrying, weapon length etc are there to use. Since the original question was posed in the Delving Deeper forum I answered from the Delving Deeper perspective. DD includes weapon based initiative and parrying (from Man-to-Man) in its representation of one minute combat turns. In essence, two weapons represents twice the likelihood of making a hit and doing damage. For games, perhaps, but I'm not aware this is otherwise true.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 3, 2014 12:08:57 GMT -6
In my game I pretty much do the same. +1 to hit or +1 AC players choice. Same here, but I restrict dual wielding to Fighters and thieves with DEX score of 13+
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jul 29, 2016 14:33:59 GMT -6
Old thread but great ideas. Have a player who always wants to dual wield. Knowing there are historical fighting styles incorporating this skill I hate simply saying no. Im going to go with these suggestions:
1. Only fighters. 2.In m2m one weapon can parry and one attack at -1. 3.vs. Non weapon wielding monsters you may attack @ -4 w/2nd weapon. 4.If you roll a fumble you lose a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Jul 30, 2016 0:05:13 GMT -6
I let players buy a parrying dagger as an off-hand weapon if they like. In an astounding coincidence it costs exactly the same as a shield, and has the same effect. So it's more of a favor thing. I think the idea of characters running around with two swords (or whatever) to be a bit silly and not something I encourage in my games. Which is strange, cause I'm otherwise all about the silly.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Aug 4, 2016 10:31:31 GMT -6
I am not the student of ancient warfare some on the forum are but I seem to recall reading that sword and long knife were used in conjunction. I could see two rapiers as well but I've never held a rapier. I heft swords at Ren/Med Faire and they seem unwieldy for dual but then its a Hero thing maybe in D&D. The player surprised me and did not choose the option this time. Could be because he went with a Reptilian warrior who had natural attacks as an option.
|
|