PDA

View Full Version : Legitimate boost to Two Weapon Fighting?



Alberic Strein
2013-11-23, 03:41 AM
Hello Playgrounders!

I'm looking for some boost to give two weapon fighting, besides giving another attack/parry.

To give you some context, I have a problem with giving a Two-weapon fighter an additional attack, even at a malus. I'm DM'ing an MRQII game right now, but really, the issue can extend itself to D&D easily, so don't hesitate to shoot ideas, even some pretty general ones.

First side of the problem: When applicable, I enjoy realistic elements in my rules. As Vaarsuvius would say it, I like to give the laws of physic some time alone to cry in a corner.

Second side of the problem: While by no means any more knowledgeable than any kid that picked up a few twigs and dueled with his brother about fencing, I found that no, having a second weapon in your off-hand does not grant you an extra attack. Neither makes using both simultaneously more cumbersome, right hand parries, left strikes, one movement, no issues (I found). I don't remember trying to strike with both however, which might be unwieldly, or making giving each blow enough strength difficult.

Worse, while in D&D TWF is not something to nerf, in MRQII holding a weapon in your off-hand (gauntlets with which you can punch not included) give you another action. Which, by RAW is not even linked to using said off-hand weapon. "Why am I acting once more with my longsword? Well, I have a FORK in my off-hand, you know." Rules get even more screwy when you start throwing knives. "Ok, I got one knife in each hand and 4 actions. I throw one. Now I have two actions. Now I draw another one. Two actions. I throw one more. Zero actions. Everyone is now inflicted with a headache."

Of course, one common houserule is that the action given by your TWF must be used on your off-hand weapon. Yet, I find this is hardly enough. One action is a HUGE boon. Parrying costs an action. Having more means you can strike at your defenseless opponent, which, given the number of hit points in the game and the way wounds work, can spell out immediate victory if you know what you're doing.

Same goes for Sword'n Board, except it's even better since it allows you to block missiles (no throwing fun however).

Hence, no weapon fighting and single weapon fighting get penalised a LOT, while THWP gets penalised a bit less. Their damage is easily negated by a shield, and the +1 action bonus means their reach advantage is gone by the end of the turn, but they can nullify the TWF parry.

But the +1 action is really, really, too much of an unwarranted and stupidly good bonus.

Well, as a DM, I am actually empowered to tone it down, or even strip it all entirely.

I talked about my players about this, giving them a few choices:

1Screw my crying over that one action, we're keeping things as is.
2We take out that action bonus, but I find something nice to trade it with.
3 Screw that action bonus, and no compromises.

Weirdly enough, they favored 2 and 3.

I'm not worried for sword'n board. Either a bonus to parrying, or the shield actually adding up to the arm's armor. Or a free parry against long ranged weapons, at most.

Shields were actually damn fragkking useful in real life and held a number of very strong advantages, I have no issue translating those in game terms. Though I welcome ideas.

But for two weapon fighting... I really have no idea. They don't increase your swinging speed, besides close range they're not that good for blocking...

Any ideas?

They can be general or specific, but it would be good if they could come from a real-life advantage to using those.

Like, maybe a maneuver bonus? Since two weapon fighting allows you to dextrously do two things in one action, it could mean a bonus on a maneuver (range change, riposte) after a successful parry. Or the ability to use an offensive maneuver (bleeding, impaling, etc...) as part of a successful riposte, or maybe instead of a defensive maneuver...

Some tactical advantage, if you will, since fencing treaties I saw bits of seem to show such examples. (Again, I'm a total illettrate on the subject)

Emphasizing diverse weapons? A shield may vary in size and shape, but it's still a shield. While some (if not very historical) weapons had things they were awesome at, like breaking the opponent's weapon. By underlining the positive specifics of such weapons, it could make TWF more worthwile, even despite the nerf...

Any thoughts?

Rhynn
2013-11-23, 03:49 AM
I thought MRQ2 gave you a free parry reaction for wielding a second weapon (such as a shield), performed with that weapon? If not, just make that the rule. Boom, realism. Maybe I'm thinking RQ6 for the free parry... (It's an improvement on MRQ2, BTW.)

Realistically, using a shield is just the superior choice, unless you need the power of a two-handed weapon (and can rely on armor to protect you; not that RQ armor is realistically effective).

Alberic Strein
2013-11-23, 04:10 AM
Except that in MRQII that one action is completely broken. Also, I can deal with shields being the superior choice, although, by the little I know, polearms gave them a run for their money.

And never, at any point of the history of civilised warfare two weapon fighting was anywhere as close to be as good as it is in MRQII.

Shields blocked well, and extended that to ranged weapons. I can take away the free parry and keep that, and it seems balanced to me (maybe leave the free parry against long range attacks, again).

But if I take the bonus action/parry with off-hand weapon from two weapon fighting, it just becomes Sword'n board... Except worse. So I'm looking for something nice to give my players while preventing it from being the go-to choice.

Rhynn
2013-11-23, 05:43 AM
I wrote reaction, not action. Big difference. (Specify "defensive reaction" I guess, I don't remember what all reactions can do.) Obviously using the second weapon only (you don't get an extra dodge for having a shield).

But yeah, MRQ2 actions are broken, RQ6 is superior partly for that reason (you use the same pool of actions for attacks and defenses).

Honestly, sword & board should be the go-to choice. Two weapons were used when you couldn't or didn't want to carry a shield or a two-handed weapon (which are a freaking chore to lug around). It's a civilian combat thing, mostly.

In RQ6, sword & dagger also gives you an advantage for when someone gets inside your sword's reach: you have a shorter weapon you can use to attack them instead.

Berenger
2013-11-23, 05:55 AM
Well, I can imagine several situations that justify holding a weapon in each of your hands:

1. Holding a ranged weapon in one hand and a melee weapon in the other to have options in a mixed-up fight.

2. Holding an early firearm in each hand, since the reload time makes it a one-way weapon in any given encounter so you can shoot twice.

3. Holding a real melee weapon and a parrying dagger that acts more as a combined shield + backup weapon.

Fighting with two weapons at once wasn't really done, for good reasons I presume.

However, it's slightly preferrable to fighting with a one-handed weapon and an empty left hand, if only to keep your enemy guessing which weapon will be used in the next attack and to have more options in exploiting gaps in his defense.

So I'd give a single attack with weapon A or weapon B at the attackers discretion at a +1 or +2 bonus to hit and defense. Or a flat bonus that can be splitted between attack and defense at your liking.

endoperez
2013-11-23, 08:50 AM
If you use both hands, you can do things you can't do with one hand. For example, parry while you attack.

Having something in your other hand was considered a good idea, at least if you go by the fencing manuals where you are armed with rapier and dagger, rapier and cloak (draped over your hand), rapier and lantern, rapier and buckler and so on.

It's not that you necessarily want to use it, but if you have to use it, you can. So perhaps, once per turn, you get a slight advantage to something you're doing - don't know how the system works, but something like the D&D "+1 to roll" thing should work. Well, I've basically described the D&D Dodge which is horrible, but any way.

Perhaps you could get a +1 to some action, depending on what you have on the other hand. Defense, precision, damage, grappling... if you've got nothing on the other hand, then balancing or something like that would work.

Thinker
2013-11-23, 09:19 AM
Increase chance to crit.

LibraryOgre
2013-11-23, 09:22 AM
While Hackmaster has some nice rules about it, one of the simplest and neatest rules I've read is, when armed with two weapons, you roll damage twice and take the best. So, if you're fighting longsword and dagger, you roll 1d8 and 1d4, and use whichever damage is best... usually the 1d8, but sometimes the d4 will give you a boost. If your weapons have something special about them (say, your dagger is flaming and your sword is icy), you might choose to use your flaming dagger damage regardless, due to the creature you're fighting.

This puts it at a distinct disadvantage v. two-handed weapons (which do more damage) and sword and board (which should have a bigger defensive adjustment than D&D gives; in Hackmaster, even a small shield is about +8 over a single weapon).

Jacob.Tyr
2013-11-23, 10:13 AM
If you use both hands, you can do things you can't do with one hand. For example, parry while you attack.

Having something in your other hand was considered a good idea, at least if you go by the fencing manuals where you are armed with rapier and dagger, rapier and cloak (draped over your hand), rapier and lantern, rapier and buckler and so on.

It's not that you necessarily want to use it, but if you have to use it, you can. So perhaps, once per turn, you get a slight advantage to something you're doing - don't know how the system works, but something like the D&D "+1 to roll" thing should work. Well, I've basically described the D&D Dodge which is horrible, but any way.

This is probably the most accurate way to model it, from my sparring experience. Off-hand weapons aren't going to give you a second attack, but you can use them to feint, or after a feint with your main hand, to increase your chance to hit, as well as for parrying.

Proposed alternate structure:
+ bonus to hit
+ parry (Is this an action? Or perhaps it's just a + AC?)
Ability to use the Hackmaster method (roll damage from both and choose highest) and lose parry for that round.

LibraryOgre
2013-11-23, 03:34 PM
Proposed alternate structure:
+ bonus to hit
+ parry (Is this an action? Or perhaps it's just a + AC?)
Ability to use the Hackmaster method (roll damage from both and choose highest) and lose parry for that round.

Sorry, I wasn't clear; "roll twice and take the best damage" isn't the Hackmaster system, merely one I have heard of.

Hackmaster's system relies on their second-by-second count-up system. With a weapon, you can attack every X seconds, with X being modified by your skill with the weapon, your skill in general (higher-level fighters can attack faster than most other characters, even with weapons they don't have a lot of skill in), and the weapon's quality.

In two-weapon fighting, you have to choose between defensive fighting and offensive fighting. IIRC, if fighting offensively, you can attack X+2 seconds, with both weapons. However, two-weapon offensive means you roll d10p defense, where the average is d20p. If you're fighting 2 weapon defensively, then you roll d20p defense against 1 attacker, and d20p-4 against any subsequent attacker.

Alberic Strein
2013-11-23, 07:39 PM
Lots of great ideas!

I particularly like the "roll both weapons, keep the higher one" since it really gives the feeling that you're fighting with both weapons in concert.

About the feinting you can do with two weapons, I thought I could combo nicely with that idea. MRQII works a lot with maneuvers, so a 10% bonus on maneuvers which both weapons posess, coupled with the possibility to use any maneuver each weapon has (but only one per attack/defense) should give my players some things to look forward to.

If a gladiator typed PC uses a war sword and a chain coiled around his other arm, he could deal his sword damage while simultaneously trying to entangle his foe.

Works for shields too, making a shield bash quite nice.

About shields being the cream of the crop... Yeah, during wartime. I feel that even if I don't buff sword'n board style, it would still be excessively used for armies. Ranged weapons are just such a big part of warfare. So yeah, on open field? Shields have to be mandatory.

In a one on one fight like most adventurers happen to go through? Well, better with than without, but some other options can exist, even though they hold no place in warfare.

Mr. Mask
2013-11-25, 08:46 AM
I'd recommend taking this question to the Got a Real Weapons or Armour Question? thread to find out more about two-weapon fighting.

I personally like to bind or hook my opponent's weapon, then side-step and strike with my second weapon, but you can attack with two weapons at the same time.

endoperez
2013-11-26, 02:12 AM
I'd recommend taking this question to the Got a Real Weapons or Armour Question? thread to find out more about two-weapon fighting.

I personally like to bind or hook my opponent's weapon, then side-step and strike with my second weapon, but you can attack with two weapons at the same time.

But that thread specifically doesn't discuss game rules, and many of the regulars from that thread have already posted here. I think it'd be better to make a post in that thread that refers back to this one; that way we might get a few more educated opinions in here and they're free to discuss game rules.

Mr. Mask
2013-11-26, 06:22 AM
My recommendation remains. Finding out more about the subject will aid in making rules. Game rules don't need to be involved in the questions.

I count more regulars of the thread who haven't posted here than have, by a margin.

madtinker
2013-11-26, 07:38 PM
If it was DnD and I was DM, maybe I would say that you can feint as part of your regular attack (make it a free action if combined with a standard melee attack).

Thinking out loud (ish), this deprives your opponent of his dex bonus to AC, and allows rogues to use sneak attack. Pair that with a bonus to AC, and it could be an interesting build.

Alberic Strein
2013-11-27, 06:12 PM
Keep it coming! ^^

The issue I have with asking that on the real arms and armour thread (shouldn't that be real arms and mails thread?) is that ultimately, I'm not interested into dual wielding, and certainly not with real weapons. I want to transcribe some sensical reality into game terms.

For example, MRQII has a rule about two weapon fighting, that unless both weapons are small-sized, one must always be small or at least smaller than the other. By a weapon rank.

Weapons are classified under reach : T (touch) S (small, less than a meter) M (more than a meter, up to one and a half) L (Long, one handed thrusting weapons, two handed slashing weapons) VL (Very Long, two handed polearms, including spears)

And Size, S, M, L, H (huge)

There is no one handed large sized weapon, so every off-hand weapon must be small sized.

I disagree with that rule. It's the reach at least as much as the weight, that makes two handing difficult. If you take two very long and very thin picks, I believe two handing them will be harder than if you break one in twain and stick them together to get a sturdier weapon with less reach.

That's typically a game example, I can't go around a real arms thread and ask "what's harder to dual wield, two long thin picks or one long thin pick and one short, with as much mass?"

It's not a "real arms" question.

Also, my issue is that, since you dual hand a shorter weapon (reach or size) you won't be able to have the same reach (there are no small sized weapons with medium reach). How do i take that into account?

The distance at which a fight is held is crazy important (though terrible to implement) if your weapon has a longer reach than the distance between you and the enemy, you can't parry. If your reach is shorter, you can't attack.

Such considerations are the real issue and don't fit a "real arms" thread.

Kaerou
2013-11-27, 09:38 PM
A few ideas:

Allow them to make a double attack on an AoO
Give one extra AoO per round
Raise the DC on concentration checks for fighting defensively vs a two weapon fighter due to having to be aware of two weapons vs one.

Mr. Mask
2013-11-28, 04:47 AM
Alberic: "That's typically a game example, I can't go around a real arms thread and ask "what's harder to dual wield, two long thin picks or one long thin pick and one short, with as much mass?"

It's not a "real arms" question."

You could pretty much go and ask that question. I'd reword it as, "what's more important to dual-wielding? The weight/mass of each weapon, or the length of each weapon? Are these factors equally important?" They usually would reply with personal experience, or tell you which combinations of weapon were used historically.

Having your dual weapons different lengths is useful; it allows you to manoeuvre them more easily around each other. You generally want to the heavier weapon in your main hand as well. It is possible to wield two weapons of the same length, and they don't need to be "light".

SowZ
2013-11-29, 04:29 AM
There's no real conflict between whether shields or polearms were better because people tended to use both spears and polearms. So there you go. Also, a shield really is just a huge massive advantage over a not shield. Two swords v. one sword, still anyone's game. Shield+sword v. just sword? Really unfair.

The Random NPC
2013-11-29, 05:12 AM
I've found that, in D&D, collapsing Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting into one feat can do a lot to buff it, with out much work on the GM's part.

SowZ
2013-11-29, 11:09 PM
I've found that, in D&D, collapsing Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting into one feat can do a lot to buff it, with out much work on the GM's part.

Yeah, that's pretty much required if you want to allow high level players to have viable TWF without seriously leaving them in the dust. Of course, shields deserve a big boost, too. An additional untyped AC bonus, (that doesn't apply to touch AC,) equal to your BAB/3 for shields that use up an arm, (animated shields/bucklers don't count,) is one way to do it without much fuss.