First Edi (OSRIC): Sword and Dagger

[Runeclaw]

In it's is section on initiative and on melee attacks, OSRIC twice references attacking with a sword and dagger to get two attacks. Are there any rules for requirements, penalties, or anything like that in OSRIC or 1st Ed generally? Can I really just do this by saying I do it?

[Thrudd]

In it's is section on initiative and on melee attacks, OSRIC twice references attacking with a sword and dagger to get two attacks. Are there any rules for requirements, penalties, or anything like that in OSRIC or 1st Ed generally? Can I really just do this by saying I do it?

Anyone may fight with two weapons, and make two attacks in the same combat segment. The second weapon must be a dagger or hand axe. You get -2 to your primary weapon attack roll, and -4 to the secondary weapon attack. Any Dexterity modifier applies to both rolls, but will never give a positive modifier to the attack. 18 Dex (+3 modifier) would reduce the penalty to 0 on the primary weapon, and -1 on the secondary.
Wielding two weapons does not let you attempt to parry twice, or parry and attack on the same turn.

[Runeclaw]

Anyone may fight with two weapons, and make two attacks in the same combat segment. The second weapon must be a dagger or hand axe. You get -2 to your primary weapon attack roll, and -4 to the secondary weapon attack. Any Dexterity modifier applies to both rolls, but will never give a positive modifier to the attack. 18 Dex (+3 modifier) would reduce the penalty to 0 on the primary weapon, and -1 on the secondary.
Wielding two weapons does not let you attempt to parry twice, or parry and attack on the same turn.

Where is this found?

[Thrudd]

Where is this found?

In OSRIC, the chapter on combat under combat modifiers, heading "Two-Weapon Fighting" pg 123

1e DMG, chapter on Combat, subsection Melee, "Attacks with Two Weapons" pg 70

[Runeclaw]

In OSRIC, the chapter on combat under combat modifiers, heading "Two-Weapon Fighting" pg 123

1e DMG, chapter on Combat, subsection Melee, "Attacks with Two Weapons" pg 70

Thank you!!!

But my copy of OSRIC (a5) does not contain that heading on that page (nor the text 'two-weapon' anywhere in the document).

Still, if it's from the 1st Ed DMG, that should be good enough.

Now if only my Dexterity were better...

[Thrudd]

Thank you!!!

But my copy of OSRIC (a5) does not contain that heading on that page (nor the text 'two-weapon' anywhere in the document).

Still, if it's from the 1st Ed DMG, that should be good enough.

Now if only my Dexterity were better...

I see, I had an older version. The A5 is a newer revision of the document. Two-Weapon Fighting rules are in there, though, same text and everything. Just page 128 instead of 123.

[Runeclaw]

I see, I had an older version. The A5 is a newer revision of the document. Two-Weapon Fighting rules are in there, though, same text and everything. Just page 128 instead of 123.

Well, what do you know! I must be blind. For some reason, I stopped reading just above there, after the section on unarmed combat. And my text search didn't find it, maybe because of the hyphen.

Thanks again.

Now to make an excel spreadsheet to calculate which opponent ACs make this advantageous.

[Joe the Rat]

Ignoring weapon damage for a bit, and assuming no dex mod, you are more likely to score hits with two-weapon if you would normally require a 14 or less to-hit with a single weapon. Factoring in weapon damage, a d8 weapon will out damage d8/d4 at needing 15+ to-hit, or d6/d6 at 13+ to-hit. single d6 vs any d6/+offhand flips damage-wise at 15.

The flip points goes up by 2 roughly for each +1 dex mod, and having a +2 or better makes this always advantageous, though you are giving up shield AC (if that's an option for your class).

I really wish someone had pointed out two-weapon fighting back in the day. It would have made a big difference to my thieves.

[rredmond]

I really wish someone had pointed out two-weapon fighting back in the day. It would have made a big difference to my thieves.

Every thief I play nowadays uses a dagger in the off hand. It just makes sense. :)

--Ron--

[LibraryOgre]

I really wish someone had pointed out two-weapon fighting back in the day. It would have made a big difference to my thieves.

One of the scariest characters I ever made was a ranger with exceptional strength and double specialization in hand axes (the only other available off-hand weapon). Veritable cuisinart of death, especially against humanoids.

[CE DM]

you can attack via range too (find an axe of hurling or 2 & BOOM)

OSRIC didn't expand the weapons to include horseman's mace, hammer, etc?:smallconfused::smallconfused: or maybe it dropped it down to daggers (knives?) only?

[Thrudd]

you can attack via range too (find an axe of hurling or 2 & BOOM)

OSRIC didn't expand the weapons to include horseman's mace, hammer, etc?:smallconfused::smallconfused: or maybe it dropped it down to daggers (knives?) only?

It's exactly as 1e DMG, daggers and hand axes. Don't know why it never included other small throwable weapons, like club and hammer. Who knows, maybe so that clerics can't do it? Or Gygax didn't know of any historical examples of people fighting with a hammer or mace in their off-hand? Or just an oversight. 1e is not the most comprehensibly put together set of rules. I'm sure if someone asked, most DM's would allow other small weapons to be wielded in the off-hand.

[1eGuy]

you can attack via range too (find an axe of hurling or 2 & BOOM)

OSRIC didn't expand the weapons to include horseman's mace, hammer, etc?:smallconfused::smallconfused: or maybe it dropped it down to daggers (knives?) only?1e did not mention using two thrown weapons but the attacks/rnd assume that you have the ammo, so it's sort of subsumed, I think.

[CE DM]

It's exactly as 1e DMG, daggers and hand axes. Don't know why it never included other small throwable weapons, like club and hammer. Who knows, maybe so that clerics can't do it? Or Gygax didn't know of any historical examples of people fighting with a hammer or mace in their off-hand? Or just an oversight. 1e is not the most comprehensibly put together set of rules. I'm sure if someone asked, most DM's would allow other small weapons to be wielded in the off-hand.

Thanks for the info, Thrudd.

Gygax (& Mentzer) placed dual wielding clerics galore in the temple of elemental evil/village of Hommlet. Hell, sometimes they use STAFF & mace. It's 2e that brought down a big nerf hammer on clerics (& magi) fighting with 2 weapons.

[1eGuy]

Thanks for the info, Thrudd.

Gygax (& Mentzer) placed dual wielding clerics galore in the temple of elemental evil/village of Hommlet. Hell, sometimes they use STAFF & mace.Ah, but in 1e, NPCs are monsters. Don't assume that the same rules apply to them as to PCs. OTOH, don't assume that you have to stick with the RAW. I this case, I think the rule given is a strong hint to the power that two-weapon fighting should grant and anything that stays within that envelope should be okay. I don't see any problem with allowing hammers, but I would strongly resist allowing a PC to use two longswords or scimitars, for example.

[CE DM]

Well, the "monster" bit doesn't fly, and I've had zero fear about changing RAW since the early 80's, but I agree on weapons overall though. So did many folks; articles in dragon popped up from time to time, and anyone can read the PH stats for things like hand axes, hammers, etc & see how close they really are to each other.

Hand axe Wt 50 gp Length c. 1.5' Space Required 1'
Hammer Wt 50 gp Length c. 1.5' Space Required 2'
Horseman's Mace Wt 50 gp Length c. 1.5' Space Required 2'
Pick, Military, horseman’s WT 40gp Length c. 1.5' Space Required 2'
all do about the same damage as well. :smalltongue:

In the case of Lareth the beautiful (the first cleric of those I mention), I just make sure his staff of striking is a Jo or Hanbo of striking. :smallcool:

[1eGuy]

Well, the "monster" bit doesn't fly,What I means is that NPCs don't have to use the PHB any more than a krakan does. I've just placed a cleric who has the normal spell-casting ability for 8th level but has 5hp because she's never left her temple. She's just a different kind of monster for all practical purposes.

There's a feeling for many people that humans all have to be 0-level or exactly BtB for normal classed PCs. Which is why we had all those silly "NPC class" magazine articles that came complete with experience charts!

[CE DM]

Well, I agree with you in principal, but I'm still sticking with my impression that Gygax simply assumed anyone with a very good dex score can dual wield pretty well. It's not a unique bonus. As to the NPC classes, some were quite good, and as someone who used them here & there BITD, I can say that they were used for PC's at least as often as NPC's. The real reason they were called "NPC only" was because they were not Gygax made/approved additions to the game. At least that's the case for 90% of them. Behind the scenes the TSR folks knew full well they were being used as PC's, and they have said as much in more recent times.

[Thrudd]

Thanks for the info, Thrudd.

Gygax (& Mentzer) placed dual wielding clerics galore in the temple of elemental evil/village of Hommlet. Hell, sometimes they use STAFF & mace. It's 2e that brought down a big nerf hammer on clerics (& magi) fighting with 2 weapons.

I never read that particular one (staff and mace) as a pair that were used at once. It just meant the cleric has both a staff and a mace, and can use whichever is most appropriate. But I agree in general, there's no reason other small weapons couldn't be used in an off hand when it makes sense. Not mentioning those weapons in the DMG is probably an oversight.

[CE DM]

"Lareth will aid his guards' melee with his spells, keeping a defensive posture while commanding his troops' attacks. He will melee if necessary, and probably after using his spells. He wields a mace in his left hand (D 1-6, -2 "to hit" as secondary weapon) and a staff of striking in his right (staff + 3, D 4- 9, 20 charges; uses 1 per hit, or 2 for double damage, 3 for triple)" T1 & TOEE

"Belsornig is exceptional, having 15 Strength ( + 1 damage bonus), 18 Dexterity (-4 AC bonus and two-handed combat ability), and 16 Wisdom ( + 2 saving throw bonus vs. mind attacks, and spell bonuses included below). In a critical melee he can use a mace in his right hand and his rod of smiting (see below) in his left, thus attacking twice per round. He wears plate mail +1 and a ring of free action, but does not use a shield." TOEE pg 65

There you go

[LibraryOgre]

FWIW, a Staff of Striking and Rod of Smiting were not weapons in the usual sense... you're less "damaging the person by hitting them hard" and more "damaging them by hitting them with magic."

[SiuiS]

Well, the "monster" bit doesn't fly,

On the contrary, monsters specifically includes NPCs, going so far as outright saying that enemy NPCs had Infravision in dungeons and doors would open for them even though identical PCs would have to bring lights and need to force open and spike doors.

This is a remnant of Chaos being an alignment, alignment being a team not a morality, and dungeons being cesspits of wickedness which actively conspired with monsters as though it were a living thing. Being a bad guy made you a monster – if you were an NPC.

[CE DM]

You are thinking of OD&D, not AD&D

And that stuff was lame & wrong headed way back then

[SiuiS]

You are thinking of OD&D, not AD&D

And that stuff was lame & wrong headed way back then

No, it's in some of the AD&D stuff too, just as assumption until they patch it up in later books.

And, no. No it's not. "Sold soul to evil forces" should make you a monster. Assuming that someone who trades their humanity away for power still has their humanity is missing the point. Evil isn't a moral stance. It's a decision to join the Bad Guys. You align with evil powers like undeath, demonic thralldom and fiendish dominance. That's why it is called alignment.

[1eGuy]

You are thinking of OD&D, not AD&D

And that stuff was lame & wrong headed way back thenI'm not completely clear on what it is you're saying was lame; can you be more specific? Is it an alignment issue or the idea that NPCs don't have to follow the rules that PCs do on the grounds that they are "monsters" in the sense of PHB p40?

[CE DM]

Everyone that isn't a PC is a "monster". That's meaningless in 1e. Monsters don't all have infravision, don't all have some kind of "knock" touch, etc, in AD&D. That's in the OD&D game & no other, and it is lame & wrong headed. Capeesh?

[SiuiS]

Everyone that isn't a PC is a "monster". That's meaningless in 1e. Monsters don't all have infravision, don't all have some kind of "knock" touch, etc, in AD&D. That's in the OD&D game & no other, and it is lame & wrong headed. Capeesh?

Do dungeon doors get stuck, in your 1e? I recall my DMG for 1e specifying that monsters don't worry about stuck doors, myself. Monster is just a tag, sure, but there's a reason that tag started as it did.

That's neither incapable of walking not illogical, really.

[Thrudd]

DMG pg 97.

Doors: As a rule of thumb, all doors are hard to open and hard to keep
closed or open for player characters, while inhabitants of the dungeon find
little difficulty in these regards.

[CE DM]

Very well, that particular awful rule of thumb did crossover more or less. Of course I ignore it as one ought, and forgot it. 1e really isn't anywhere near as good a game as I think it is, I'm just so used to removing the worst junk from it I forget that.

Nothing can stop it being lame, wrong headed, (insert negative adjective of choice), etc.

[Thrudd]

1e really isn't anywhere near as good a game as I think it is, I'm just so used to removing the worst junk from it I forget that.


Yeah, we all did that.

[1eGuy]

Everyone that isn't a PC is a "monster". That's meaningless in 1e. Monsters don't all have infravision, don't all have some kind of "knock" touch, etc, in AD&D. That's in the OD&D game & no other, and it is lame & wrong headed. Capeesh?OK. I didn't realise you were reading that much specificity into the word.

[veti]

Very well, that particular awful rule of thumb did crossover more or less. Of course I ignore it as one ought, and forgot it. 1e really isn't anywhere near as good a game as I think it is, I'm just so used to removing the worst junk from it I forget that.

Well, the phrase "rule of thumb" is pretty much an invitation to ignore it whenever you like, and if that means "all the time", no worries. That's the good thing about 1e: all the rules are optional.

I interpret that particular rule as "the game is about the PCs overcoming challenges. Nobody wants to sit there while the DM rolls Open Door checks for 13 orcs who are trying to get into the room they're holed up in - they just burst in and get on with it. But bring the DMmer down hard on players who try to optimise their environment by assuming the dungeon is like their home, and they can predict how a given door will behave."

[1eGuy]

Well, the phrase "rule of thumb" is pretty much an invitation to ignore it whenever you like, and if that means "all the time", no worries. That's the good thing about 1e: all the rules are optional.

I interpret that particular rule as "the game is about the PCs overcoming challenges. Nobody wants to sit there while the DM rolls Open Door checks for 13 orcs who are trying to get into the room they're holed up in - they just burst in and get on with it. But bring the DMmer down hard on players who try to optimise their environment by assuming the dungeon is like their home, and they can predict how a given door will behave."Yeah, there is actually some logic to it. The orcs live here and know, for example, that this particular door has slipped and you have to sort of lift it as you push, or that door there has to be pushed even though it's got a handle on this side or whatever; the PCs are visitors and don't know the tricks.