Two Weapons

[philotomy]

As many of you know, I've been using a house-rule for two-weapon fighting that allows a single attack roll, and 2-dice-take-highest for damage. I've been kicking around the idea of changing this to a +1 bonus to hit, instead, which would mean:

Weapon + Shield	Increased Defense (+1 AC)
Weapon + Weapon	Increased Offense (+1 to hit)
2-Handed Weapon	Increased Damage (2 dice/pick highest)

What do you think? Any comments/criticism on that approach?

[ffilz]

I kind of like that option. I would even allow the two weapon user to get the benefit of the best weapon in hand at the time, perhaps even the best benefit from each (say you have a +3 sword and a sword +1, +2 vs. orcs, when fighting orcs, you get +3 to hit and +2 damage).

This works well with the OD&D magic shield rule (though I'm still not sure how to make shield combinations worthwhile).

I think I'd still like something a bit beefier for 2-handed weapon than just best of two dice for damage, but at least all of these effects are small enough that the two-handed weapon user is not way out of whack on effectiveness.

What this system is still missing is how to make lighter weapons work well without using the weapon vs armor table.

Frank

[korgoth]

philotomy said:

As many of you know, I've been using a house-rule for two-weapon fighting that allows a single attack roll, and 2-dice-take-highest for damage. I've been kicking around the idea of changing this to a +1 bonus to hit, instead, which would mean:

Weapon + Shield	Increased Defense (+1 AC)
Weapon + Weapon	Increased Offense (+1 to hit)
2-Handed Weapon	Increased Damage (2 dice/pick highest)

What do you think? Any comments/criticism on that approach?

It looks good. As a fan of symmetry, why not +1 damage for the 2-hander? That way each option is a +1 to something.

[Stonegiant]

korgoth said:

philotomy said:

As many of you know, I've been using a house-rule for two-weapon fighting that allows a single attack roll, and 2-dice-take-highest for damage. I've been kicking around the idea of changing this to a +1 bonus to hit, instead, which would mean:

Weapon + Shield	Increased Defense (+1 AC)
Weapon + Weapon	Increased Offense (+1 to hit)
2-Handed Weapon	Increased Damage (2 dice/pick highest)

What do you think? Any comments/criticism on that approach?

It looks good. As a fan of symmetry, why not +1 damage for the 2-hander? That way each option is a +1 to something.

I would go with the +1 in addition to the 2 dice systems.

The other option not covered here is the 1 weapon without a shield

[korgoth]

stonegiant said:

The other option not covered here is the 1 weapon without a shield

In reality is there any advantage to such a style with medieval weapons?

[sham]

I house rule as follows, not to be OT but maybe just give an alternative idea:

Weapon and Shield, +1 AC for frontal attacks
Two-handed Weapon, +1 damage (FM only)
Dual Weapons, -1 to hit, +1 damage (FM only)
No change for one hander and no shield (otherwise M-Us might get some 'undeserved' bonus).

'Dual Weapons' does not yield any extra attacks per round. It's unwieldy, but does higher damage. The possible bonus would of course be using two magic weapons.

~Sham

[redpriest]

If some sort of symmetry is desired (and I'm not advocating that there need be), then swap the effects between Weapon+Weapon and 2-Handed Weapon, yielding then something like this:

Weapon + Shield	Increased Defense (+1 AC)
Weapon + Weapon	Increased Offense (2 dice/pick highest)
2-Handed Weapon	Increased Damage (+1 to damage)

This way, the dual 1-handed weapon option is represented by 2 dice, and represents the increased chance of getting a "good hit", but a hit that won't score any more points than a 1-handed weapon should. The larger 2-handed weapon, being but a single weapon, is represented by 1 die, but it has the potential to do greater damage than a 1-handed weapon.

[philotomy]

Anyone know the math for average damage on 2d6-drop-lowest vs. 1d6+1? I suspect that 2d6 drop lowest has a higher average damage, but I'm not certain.

[ffilz]

2d6 take the best averages 4.47 according to my brute force spreadsheet. 1d6+1 averages 4.5.

An interesting bit, 2d6 take the best, minimum damage of 2 averages 4.5.

The 2d6 take the best much more reliably produces 4-6 points of damage (75% of the time) wheras 1d6+1 produces 4-7 points 66.7% of the time.

What you could do is make 2 weapons be 2d6 take the best.

2-handed weapon is a dAverage+1 (3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6), averages 4.5. Now the 2-handed weapon does essentially the same range, but has a higher minimum, though not quite as good a chance at maximum.

Frank

[coffee]

2d6 drop lowest averages 4.472222

1d6+1 averages 4.5.

So, really, they're almost too close to call.

Edit: And 1d6+1 is just easier.

[joethulhu]

Something that would make shields more useful is:

Weapon + Shield	Foe rolls damage twice - defender takes the lesser roll
Weapon + Weapon	Increased Offense (2 dice/pick highest)
2-Handed Weapon	Increased Offense (3 dice/pick highest)

This would also make shields useful AGAINST two-handed weapons, as that 3 dice roll gets reduced to a 2 dice roll.

[joethulhu]

After some more thought the Weapon+Weapon combination could be given some more flexiblity, in that the character could choose to use either the Weapon+Shield benefit or the extra die roll benefit. The only restriction would be that the Weapon+Shield benefit can only be gained against small or medium opponents or weapons. Examples:

1) Fighting-Man armed with Sword and Dagger is fighting some goblins. He discovers that one is using a poisoned blade, so he backs off the offense and instead concentrates on using the dagger for defense, giving him the Weapon + Shield benefit of taking the lower of the die rolls the goblin makes if he hits. The Ref then decides that the Fighting-Man doesn't need to make a save versus Poison if the goblin hits unless both damage dice are 4 or higher.

2) Fighting-Man encounters an Ogre. His puny dagger is useless for parrying against its mighty club so he concentrates on full offense, gaining the benefit above; If he chose the Weapon+Shield Benefit, it would help him not. If he had a shield though, he'd get the lesser damage die benefit, as he can roll his shield with the Ogre's blow, potentially lessening the strike. He would also get the +1 AC bonus, which isn't a benefit of the Two Weapon defensive style.

The choices are still balanced, as the Weapon+Shield always gives the lesser damage benefit and a +1 AC bonus. Weapon+Weapon is flexible, but not optimal in most situations; 2H weapon gives the best chance for the highest d6 damage, but at the cost of defense.

[Stonegiant]

Joethulhu I think your ideas have allot merit and I am considering using some of it myself, I am still not sure about the shield reducing damage and not being figured into the AC.

[Zulgyan]

All combat tables would have to be reworked.

But hey, It's a nice a nice idea for a magic shield!

[joethulhu]

stonegiant said:

Joethulhu I think your ideas have allot merit and I am considering using some of it myself, I am still not sure about the shield reducing damage and not being figured into the AC.

You can call me northrundicandus or Joe if you want. I had trouble with my usual nickname and Proboards in the past, so I picked a new moniker.

*Waves at everyone*

[Stonegiant]

joethulhu said:

stonegiant said:

Joethulhu I think your ideas have allot merit and I am considering using some of it myself, I am still not sure about the shield reducing damage and not being figured into the AC.

You can call me northrundicandus or Joe if you want. I had trouble with my usual nickname and Proboards in the past, so I picked a new moniker.

*Waves at everyone*

Ah Northy in stealth mode, I see said the blind man

Actually the loss of the shield from the AC system would actually reduce the combat chart size and streamline it (assuming the use of the alternative system). You would have only the AC's of 9,7,5,& 3 (assuming assuming no DEX bonus). Putting my own twist on this I would allow the defender to roll their own shield die and that would then be deducted from the attackers damage. This brings to mind an interesting concept/idea-

I have been for the past month or so working on two ideas- a fantasy Native American OD&D campaign and the other being a neolithic/copper age campaign. Both of these campaigns would be very light on armor (if any) and shields would be very important piece of equipment. This new twist on the shield has me thinking.

[jjarvis]

Mar 26, 2008 13:34:52 GMT -6 korgoth said:

stonegiant said:

The other option not covered here is the 1 weapon without a shield

In reality is there any advantage to such a style with medieval weapons?

One would have to have a more defensive and reactive stance to make good use of a single weapoin with no shield. A free hand can be an advantage.

In real life and semi-real life fighting with two weapons is very difficult and unitl one gets very good at it they are at a defensive disadvantage.

[Meepo]

Philotomy, as one who also uses roll 2, drop 1 for any form of 2-handed combo, how did you feel your new system worked? I like the contrast between the two +1's of an extra weapons vs. a shield.

[philotomy]

Having three different options, viz. extra offense, extra damage, and extra defense, was well-received by the players. I think I'll be sticking with it.

[Meepo]

I think I may move that direction as well then. I've used the 2 dice, drop lower, pretty much forever. It's my preferred way of handling 2 weapons at once rather than multiple attacks -X/-X, so it made sense to use it to give two-handed weapons some significance over a single D6 weapon.

However, I really liked your idea a lot. It just feels a bit more elegant, more in line with whats going on in your off-hand. I'm glad it worked well because I may have to make a revision on my house rules... ;D

(yoink)

[WSmith]

Mar 26, 2008 14:35:50 GMT -6 redpriest said:

If some sort of symmetry is desired (and I'm not advocating that there need be), then swap the effects between Weapon+Weapon and 2-Handed Weapon, yielding then something like this:

Weapon + Shield	Increased Defense (+1 AC)
Weapon + Weapon	Increased Offense (2 dice/pick highest)
2-Handed Weapon	Increased Damage (+1 to damage)

This way, the dual 1-handed weapon option is represented by 2 dice, and represents the increased chance of getting a "good hit", but a hit that won't score any more points than a 1-handed weapon should. The larger 2-handed weapon, being but a single weapon, is represented by 1 die, but it has the potential to do greater damage than a 1-handed weapon.

I really like this option. Wpn +Shield =what is in the rules already. Wpn +Wpn = what I have been using. 2hd wpn = something I had been thinking about but was not sure what to do. I am going to put this in my rules. One thing I will add is that a two handed weapon attacks first on the first round of engagement, (like is AD&D.) The only thing left is setting vs. a charge, but that might be for a whole other thread.

[WSmith]

Mar 26, 2008 13:34:52 GMT -6 korgoth said:

stonegiant said:

The other option not covered here is the 1 weapon without a shield

In reality is there any advantage to such a style with medieval weapons?

I think, (but not sure) better reaction or mobility. Mobility alone is accounted for in encumbrance. So if you want a combat benefit:

1 single handed weapon only = increased reactivity / +1 pip to initiative for wielder only (not whole party.)

Not sure I would go with this cause pretty much all magic users are using one weapon when they actually get into combat. However, this might increase the survivability of the MU just slightly enough. I dunno. Thoughts?

[philotomy]

I don't think I'd give a mechanical benefit to one weapon/no shield. You have a free hand, which might come in handy (ha), but I don't think it warrants any kind of bonus.

[dwayanu]

I think that unless one knows how to lunge effectively (a post-medieval technique employing lighter weapons, IIRC), one loves one's shield. Some folks can lunge with a shield, but my impression is that they tend to get beaten by swordsmen expert at working without one. The Orient seems to have been keener on developing two-handed weapon techniques (both thrusting and slashing). A one-handed stance without a shield is probably at a significant disadvantage in most ancient/medieval cases. Weapons might be designed to accommodate both 1H and 2H employment.

An oddity of the basic D&D system is that a shield is in proportion more significant with heavier armor. Realistically, I think the case would be just the opposite. That may not be very apparent with but one HD, though. When any hit might kill and one is starting with a high risk, every little bit of protection is precious; when the chance gets low enough, there's a "comfort zone" in going without a shield.

[WSmith]

Jul 6, 2008 8:41:12 GMT -6 philotomy said:

I don't think I'd give a mechanical benefit to one weapon/no shield. You have a free hand, which might come in handy (ha), but I don't think it warrants any kind of bonus.

I tend to agree with you. Plus is keeps the baseline simplistic.

[Meepo]

Plus, some poor schlub has to carry the torch!

[philotomy]

Linkboys are cheap.

[Meepo]

Jul 6, 2008 16:24:27 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Linkboys are cheap.

First to die!

(what can I say, I love Charisma!)

[ffilz]

One hand free is also handy to hold a throwing weapon (of course throwing weapon in primary hand, melee in off hand) or a cross.

Sadly poor Zsolt never got to try out any of these tactics...

Frank