Two-weapon fighting

nwelte1 · Post by **nwelte1** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:17 am

I was reading the 3rd ed PHB p. 119 regarding two weapon fighting. I noticed something I never caught before - the exact wording of the last three sentences. Per the wording, I understand the following:

1. Primary hand is at -3 (fine I knew this before)

2. Secondary hand is at -6 (fine I knew this before)

3. The above penalties are affected by the dex. mod. (Wow!!! Finesse fighter here I come.)

4. Str mod is not applied to the to hit stat. It only applies to dmg. (Wow!! It don't pay to be a brute with two weapons.)

If I understand the RaW, a lvl 6 human fighter with +0 str, +3 dex using two weapons will have a primary +to hit of 7 (with a weapon that is speced) and a secondary to hit of 4 (with weap. spec.) Yet a fighter with +3 str and +0 dex will have a primary to hit of 4 and secondary of 1 (again assuming weapon spec).

Am I reading that right???? It makes sense to me now that I read it closely and have thought about the dexterity needed to wield two weapons. But, I can't believe I never notice the exact wording before.

Am I the only person who as missed this?

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:23 am

nwelte1 wrote:
Am I the only person who as missed this?

Yes, definiately yes.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:40 am

Sorry Nate, I couldn't help myself. I read it that way as well.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:47 am

No, I did not miss it. In fact, I seem to recall being the one to propose Strength not applying to the hit roll in the first place...

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:57 am

Her's a question to go along with this. Say a character had his Dex magically increased to a 20. Going by the chart on page 105 of the M&T under the Belt of Giant Strength (which is the only place I've seen for abilities above 18), the modifier would be a +4. Would this character have a +1/-2 to hit (plus BtH) when fighting with 2 weapons?

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:06 am

serleran wrote:
No, I did not miss it. In fact, I seem to recall being the one to propose Strength not applying to the hit roll in the first place...

I might have known you were the one responsible for that travesty.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:15 am

Quote:
I might have known you were the one responsible for that travesty.

It was to prevent every fighter from wielding two-weapons, and, to give other classes which may not have a high Strength an option. I don't consider that a travesty. This whole dual-wielding thing was a battleground of development, let me tell you. Almost as vicious as rangers (maybe spurred on because some thought rangers should get this "just because.") Of course, not everything I wanted to see make it, made it, but that was my rationalization for it... don't know what the "real reason" was as, at that time, I was not involved in development due to moving clear across the US.

Quote:
Would this character have a +1/-2 to hit (plus BtH) when fighting with 2 weapons?

Technically, unless the rules say otherwise (I've never seen anyone, except a monk, try dual-wielding), yes. The rules would have to stipulate that the Dexterity modifier can only reduce the penalty to zero, and not grant an actual bonus, but I'm not sure that phrase (or something like it) is in the rulebook. It was part of the original idea, though (so the best possible would be +0/-3 for Dexterity of 18, -0/-2 for 20, -0/-1 for 22, and -0/-0 for 24).

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:50 am

serleran wrote:
It was to prevent every fighter from wielding two-weapons, and, to give other classes which may not have a high Strength an option. I don't consider that a travesty. This whole dual-wielding thing was a battleground of development, let me tell you. Almost as vicious as rangers (maybe spurred on because some thought rangers should get this "just because.") Of course, not everything I wanted to see make it, made it, but that was my rationalization for it... don't know what the "real reason" was as, at that time, I was not involved in development due to moving clear across the US.

I can imagine, though I would have been happier with 'Strength or Dexterity', rather than 'Dexterity, but never Strength'. Of course, in my games that's exactly what it is, so no big deal (Actually, to be honest, in my games it works more like this). Obviously 'travesty' was overstating the case for comic purposes/effect.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:52 am

Thanks Serl, that's what I thought.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

Zudrak · Post by **Zudrak** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:44 pm

This seems akin to the 1e AD&D rule in the DMG (where the penalties of -2/-5(???) were offset by the DEX modifier), except you got your strength bonus to hit and damage, IIRC.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:50 pm

In AD&D 1e it is -2/-4, but characters are limited to Hand Axes and Daggers as Off Hand Weapons, but an 18 Dexterity offsets the penalties to 0/-1. The way that Off Hand Weapons and Attack Routines interacted with Multiple Attack Routines is not perfectly clear.

In AD&D 2e characters can get the penalties down to 0/0 and use any weapon in the Off Hand by way of the Complete Fighter's Handbook, which makes it pretty much the best fighting style, but in the core rules it works almost the same way as in 1e; the key differences are that an 18 Dexterity only reduces the penalties to 0/-2 and that the Off Hand Weapon can be any small (which eliminates the Hand Axe, but admits the Short Sword). AD&D 2e also explicitly limited Off Hand Attacks to one per Round.

In both cases, characters can add their full Strength Bonus to hit and damage on top of any penalty reduction.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:04 pm

I dont play it as written, but it's not broken or anything as-is. If you prefer, use the 1st ed ADnD rules.

nittanytbone14 · Post by **nittanytbone14** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:44 pm

Rangers have a strong incentive to dual-wield even with the rule as-is, at least vs. Combat Marauder foes.

Imagine a 4th level ranger with +2 STR, +2 DEX.

He can either wield a two handed weapon for, say, 2d6 damage. He is +5 to hit for 2d6+2+4 (13). So, vs. an AC 15 foe (typical humanoid rabble) he's doing an average of 0.55 * 13 = 7.15 damage per round.

Or he can wield a longsword and hand axe.

With his on hand he is +2 to hit for 1d8+2+4. 0.4 * 10.5 = 4.2

With the off hand he is +0 to hit for 1d6+2+4. 0.3 * 9.5 = 2.85

FOr a total of: 7.05.

Thus, if the ranger (A) gains a level and thus another point of damage (B) has anything that boosts to-hits (bless, a friendly Knight, etc) or (C) is facing a lower AC foe, he is actually better off dual-wielding than THF!

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:33 pm

Which might be why a C&C Ranger didn't get anything to nullify two weapon use!

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:44 pm

I've been contemplating the idea of letting a prime in dex eliminate the TWF penalties. That, or a prime allowing modifiers to bring the negative into positives.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Zudrak · Post by **Zudrak** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:52 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
I've been contemplating the idea of letting a prime in dex eliminate the TWF penalties. That, or a prime allowing modifiers to bring the negative into positives.

Hmm. You could be onto something there. A bonus given to PC based on the primes he has.

Dex = Elimination of TWF penalties

I'm about to leave work and can't focus at the moment. But that does allow for some great creative ideas.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

nittanytbone14 · Post by **nittanytbone14** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:30 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
I've been contemplating the idea of letting a prime in dex eliminate the TWF penalties. That, or a prime allowing modifiers to bring the negative into positives.

You could allow a prime to grant a +2 bonus in addition to anything provided by DEX. That makes a character with 18 DEX +2/-1 when dual-wielding.

This would be fine if you run an otherwise low-powered game (lower ability scores with few +3 and +2 modifiers, fewer magic items, fewer buffing spells/items). If you run a higher powered game it might make TWF too good!
THF

7th level fighter with +2 WS in 2d6 THF weapon, 18 STR, +2 weapon, and +1 in temporary bonuses (bless spell, for example)

Bonus to Hit = +15 (7 BtH + 2 WS + 3 STR + 2 MAGIC + 1 BUFF)

% to Hit AC 20 = 0.80

% to Hit AC 25 = 0.55

% to Hit AC 30 = 0.30

Avg Damage = 14 (7 WEAPON BASE + 2 WS + 3 STR + 2 MAGIC)
Avg Dam vs. AC 15 = 13.75

Avg Dam vs. AC 20 = 11.2

Avg Dam vs. AC 25 = 7.7

Avg Dam vs. AC 30 = 4.2
TWF BTB

7th level fighter with +2 WS in 1d6 weapon, +2 STR,+3 DEX, +1 weapons, and +1 in temporary bonuses (bless spell, for example)

Bonus to Hit (on hand) = +11 (-3 TWF + 7 BtH + 2 WS + 3 DEX + 1 MAGIC + 1 BUFF)

% to Hit AC 20 = 0.60

% to Hit AC 25 = 0.35

% to Hit AC 30 = 0.20

Bonus to Hit (off hand) = +8

% to Hit AC 20 = 0.45

% to Hit AC 25 = 0.20

% to Hit AC 30 = 0.05

Avg Damage = 8.5 (3.5 WEAPON BASE + 2 WS + 2 STR + 1 MAGIC)
Avg Dam vs. AC 15 = 13.175

Avg Dam vs. AC 20 = 8.925 (0.6 * 8.5 + 0.45 * 8.5)

Avg Dam vs. AC 25 = 4.675 (0.35 * 8.5 + 0.20 * 8.5)

Avg Dam vs. AC 30 = 2.125 (0.20 * 8.5 + 0.05 * 8.5)

THF is significantly better than TWF except vs. low ACs.
TWF with DEX Prime Granting +2 to hit

7th level fighter with +2 WS in 1d6 weapon, +2 STR,+3 DEX, +1 weapons, and +1 in temporary bonuses (bless spell, for example)

Bonus to Hit (on hand) = +13 (-3 TWF + 2 PRIME + 7 BtH + 2 WS + 3 DEX + 1 MAGIC + 1 BUFF)

% to Hit AC 20 = 0.70

% to Hit AC 25 = 0.45

% to Hit AC 30 = 0.30

Bonus to Hit (off hand) = +10

% to Hit AC 20 = 0.55

% to Hit AC 25 = 0.30

% to Hit AC 30 = 0.05

Avg Damage = 8.5
Avg Dam vs. AC 20 = 10.625 (0.70 * 8.5 + 0.55 * 8.5)

Avg Dam vs. AC 25 = 6.375 (0.45 * 8.5 + 0.30 * 8.5)

Avg Dam vs. AC 30 = 2.975 (0.30 * 8.5 + 0.05 * 8.5)

THF is still superior, but not by much. Also, if any more situational bonuses add up (Prayer, Knight's Inspire, etc) then TWF will be superior.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:15 pm

Easiest way I have found to balance it and still allow Strength Bonuses to count is to ensure that the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting are never reduced independent of to hit bonuses and to give Two Handed Weapons a bonus to hit and damage over and above the norm. i.e.

Two Handed Weapon: +1 to hit, 1D12+1 damage

One Handed Weapon: +0 to hit, 1D8 damage

Two One Handed Weapons: 2x [-4 to hit, 1D8 damage]

So, for example, take three Level 1 Fighters with Strength 16:

Two Handed Weapon: +4 to hit, 1D12+3 damage

One Handed Weapon: +3 to hit, 1D8+2 damage

Two One Handed Weapons: -1 to hit, 2 x 1D8+2 damage

Quote:
Against AC 0

Two Handed Weapon: 125%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5

One Handed Weapon: 120%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [100% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 13

Against AC 1

Two Handed Weapon: 120%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5

One Handed Weapon: 115%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [95% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 12.35

Against AC 2

Two Handed Weapon: 115%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5

One Handed Weapon: 110%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [90% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 11.7

Against AC 3

Two Handed Weapon: 110%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5

One Handed Weapon: 105%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [85% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 11.05

Against AC 4

Two Handed Weapon: 105%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5

One Handed Weapon: 100%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [80% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 10.4

Against AC 5

Two Handed Weapon: 100%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5

One Handed Weapon: 95%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.175

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [75% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 9.75

Against AC 6

Two Handed Weapon: 95%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.025

One Handed Weapon: 90%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 5.85

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [70% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 9.1

Against AC 7

Two Handed Weapon: 90%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 8.55

One Handed Weapon: 85%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 5.525

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [65% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 8.45

Against AC 8

Two Handed Weapon: 85%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 8.075

One Handed Weapon: 80%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 5.2

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [60% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 7.8

Against AC 9

Two Handed Weapon: 80%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 7.6

One Handed Weapon: 75%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 4.875

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [55% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 7.15

Against AC 10

Two Handed Weapon: 75%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 7.125

One Handed Weapon: 70%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 4.55

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [50% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 6.5

Against AC 11

Two Handed Weapon: 70%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 6.65

One Handed Weapon: 65%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 4.225

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [45% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 5.85

Against AC 12

Two Handed Weapon: 65%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 6.175

One Handed Weapon: 60%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 3.9

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [40%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 5.2

Against AC 13

Two Handed Weapon: 60%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 5.7

One Handed Weapon: 55%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 3.575

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [35%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 4.55

Against AC 14

Two Handed Weapon: 55%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 5.225

One Handed Weapon: 50%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 3.25

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [30%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 3.9

Against AC 15

Two Handed Weapon: 50%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 4.75

One Handed Weapon: 45%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 2.925

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [25%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 3.25

Against AC 16

Two Handed Weapon: 45%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 4.275

One Handed Weapon: 40%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 2.6

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [20%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 2.6

Against AC 17

Two Handed Weapon: 40%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 3.8

One Handed Weapon: 35%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 2.275

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [15%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 1.95

Against AC 18

Two Handed Weapon: 35%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 3.325

One Handed Weapon: 30%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 1.95

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [10%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 1.3

Against AC 19

Two Handed Weapon: 30%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 2.85

One Handed Weapon: 25%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 1.625

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [5%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0.65

Against AC 20

Two Handed Weapon: 25%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 2.375

One Handed Weapon: 20%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 1.3

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC 21

Two Handed Weapon: 20%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 1.9

One Handed Weapon: 15%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.975

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC 22

Two Handed Weapon: 15%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 1.425

One Handed Weapon: 10%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.65

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC 23

Two Handed Weapon: 10%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 0.95

One Handed Weapon: 5%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.325

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC 24

Two Handed Weapon: 5%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 0.475

One Handed Weapon: 0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC 25

Two Handed Weapon: 0%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 0

One Handed Weapon: 0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0

Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

All of the forgoing assumes no critical hits or fumbles and that 1 and 20 are of no more significance than any other roll [i.e. no auto misses or auto hits].
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:25 pm

nittanytbone14 wrote:
You could allow a prime to grant a +2 bonus in addition to anything provided by DEX. That makes a character with 18 DEX +2/-1 when dual-wielding.

This would be fine if you run an otherwise low-powered game (lower ability scores with few +3 and +2 modifiers, fewer magic items, fewer buffing spells/items). If you run a higher powered game it might make TWF too good!

Well, being 'too good' isn't generally a problem in the home brew I use. Powering things up from C&C baselines so characters aren't slaughtered in minutes is generally the trick.
I run a mesh of high fantasy/sci fi. Think Star Wars with Magic and you might have a good idea.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:31 am

I need to think on this...
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:01 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
I've been contemplating the idea of letting a prime in dex eliminate the TWF penalties. That, or a prime allowing modifiers to bring the negative into positives.

I have it house ruled that Prime cuts the penalty to -1/-3. I haven't allowed STR to be added to the hit either. Mostly because you can't put as much power and weight behind a one handed blow like you can a 2 handed blow.

So if they select DEX prime and have an 18 DEX it will be +2/+0 wielding two handed.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:27 am

For my Hyborian Age setting, I gave some classes (all fighting classes + thieves) a Two-Weapon combat ability which reduces the penalty by one, so it is easier for these classes to at least go to 0 without the need of a 18 in dex.

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:50 am

Lately, I've been thinking about the idea that the use of two weapons might not actually mean "more attacks", but rather "better attacks". The use of a second weapon might be focused on "creating a better opening" or "increasing the number of sharp bits for your opponent to worry about". How about this:

+2 To Hit, -2 To AC
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

Foxroe · Post by **Foxroe** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:21 am

adaen wrote:
Lately, I've been thinking about the idea that the use of two weapons might not actually mean "more attacks", but rather "better attacks". The use of a second weapon might be focused on "creating a better opening" or "increasing the number of sharp bits for your opponent to worry about". How about this:

+2 To Hit, -2 To AC

How would you handle damage (i.e. which weapon hits)?

-Fox

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:36 am

Foxroe wrote:
How would you handle damage (i.e. which weapon hits)?

-Fox

Perhaps values that are divisible by three are the off-handed weapon (e.g. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, ....).
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:07 am

Philotomy Jurament has an interesting solution for both two handed weapons and fighting with two weapons in OD&D. Basically, you roll damage twice and choose the best score. Nice and simple, whilst remaining reasonably balanced and easily portable onto C&C. I would suggest rolling damage for each weapon and choosing the best score.

The +2 to hit and -2 armour class idea is interesting as well, though personally I am loathe to allow 1:1 trade offs.

Another option is to allow characters fighting with weapon and shield or a two handed weapons to make two attacks, but at a -6 penalty.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

adaen · Post by **adaen** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:49 pm

Matthew wrote:
Philotomy Jurament has an interesting solution for both two handed weapons and fighting with two weapons in OD&D. Basically, you roll damage twice and choose the best score. Nice and simple, whilst remaining reasonably balanced and easily portable onto C&C. I would suggest rolling damage for each weapon and choosing the best score.

That's a pretty big advantage.

Matthew wrote:
The +2 to hit and -2 armour class idea is interesting as well, though personally I am loathe to allow 1:1 trade offs.

Another option is to allow characters fighting with weapon and shield or a two handed weapons to make two attacks, but at a -6 penalty.

Well, the 1:1 can be altered of course. I'm thinking of approaching this as thinking of everyone as wielding two weapons, eg.:

longsword and hand

longsword and shield

greatsword and greatsword (same greatsword)

longsword and dagger

longsword and longsword

From there, I'd just treat the hand, shield, second hand on the big weapon as any other weapon.....with special effects. Let me think on this....

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

Foxroe · Post by **Foxroe** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:36 pm

Matthew wrote:
Philotomy Jurament has an interesting solution for both two handed weapons and fighting with two weapons in OD&D. Basically, you roll damage twice and choose the best score. Nice and simple, whilst remaining reasonably balanced and easily portable onto C&C. I would suggest rolling damage for each weapon and choosing the best score.

While I like the elegance of this method, how does one handle a situation where the BtH for each weapon is different (i.e. +1 scimitar and a +2 dagger)? Average the bonuses, or just use the highest? What if one wanted to make a separate attack against two foes?

Personally, I'd play a character wielding two weapons because, in my mind, it's pretty swanky, and not because a house rule makes it overly appealing. So for myself, I like the rule as is; doable but not overpowering.
-Fox

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:43 pm

adaen wrote:
That's a pretty big advantage.

I dunno, doesn't seem much to me. With a Long Sword, you're talking an 15 in 64 chance of getting an eight

adaen wrote:
Well, the 1:1 can be altered of course. I'm thinking of approaching this as thinking of everyone as wielding two weapons, eg.:

longsword and hand

longsword and shield

greatsword and greatsword (same greatsword)

longsword and dagger

longsword and longsword

From there, I'd just treat the hand, shield, second hand on the big weapon as any other weapon.....with special effects. Let me think on this....

Okay. I have run along similar thoughts before, but I don't want to clog up your thinking with my conclusions!

Foxroe wrote:
While I like the elegance of this method, how does one handle a situation where the BtH for each weapon is different (i.e. +1 scimitar and a +2 dagger)? Average the bonuses, or just use the highest? What if one wanted to make a separate attack against two foes?

I imagine you only get roll damage twice (choosing the highest number) if both weapons would have hit. As for attacking separate foes, this version of fighting with two weapons will not help you do that.

Foxroe wrote:
Personally, I'd play a character wielding two weapons because, in my mind, it's pretty swanky, and not because a house rule makes it overly appealing. So for myself, I like the rule as is; doable but not overpowering.

Fair enough. The current C&C rule is not my cup of tea, but preferences differ.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Troll Lord Games

Two-weapon fighting

Two-weapon fighting

Re: Two-weapon fighting