Two weapon fighting.

[jdounis]

Hello,

 

I have just noticed that in Fantasy Complete the rule about the lack of "off hand" penalty in multiple attack is omitted and was somewhat relieved(aside from being an accidental omission), but also that  the rule of when you miss an attack you miss all the remaing in the sequence is still there.I have found both of this rules counter-intuitive when i try to model two weapon fighting in the fantasy genre.So as far as i know HERO 6TH there are the following options for modeling two weapon fighting:

 

a)Multiple Attack with the above "restrictions".

b)Combined Attack(but you can only strike one target with both weapons and only roll once).

c)Buying extra Speed with the Limitation "Only to Strike with off-hand"

 

How do you handle it in your games?

 

Thank you very much in advance.

 

 

 

 

 

[eepjr24]

Autofire possibly with autofire skills?

Linked attacks? (single target only)

 

I generally just use the multiple attack rules. The missing and not being able to continue is quite fair for something you are paying no points for. Autofire allows you to continue after a miss, but you pay points for the privilege.

 

If you don't like this or find it too under powered for Multiple Attack, just make it a campaign house rule that you can keep attacking? I think you will find Multiple Attack gets used a lot more in those cases.

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

Page 41 of Fantasy Hero Complete has the Two Weapon Fighting skill, which mentions offsetting the penalty for multiple power attacks.

 

Personally I try to discourage two weapon fighting in my fantasy hero games because historically if it was ever done it was almost always just using the offhand as defense and an occasional attack while the other was a feint.  One weapon and a shield is a much better option.  Until video games started using "dual wield" it wasn't really a thing in fantasy for the most part*.  

 

 

 

 

 

*Being that this is the internet, someone will inevitably chime in with "but example x!!!!" which is why I said "for the most part" here.

[eepjr24]

While I am sure there are other examples out there, the only one that comes to mind immediately is the Grey Mouser. I would certainly not call it a common trope.

[ghost-angel]

Multiple Attack is the mechanic to allow for two-weapon fighting;

 

But, you also have to model what holding two-weapons does for you;

 

There's Off-Hand Defense which gives a DCV Bonus why dual wielding weapons (one SFX would be having a Maine Gouche for a fencer type)

Then there's the actual Skills for Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Attack to go towards mitigating the restrictions of Multiple Attack (removing the first -2 penalty, and making it a 1/2 phase action, respectively); which are good Skills for trained dual-wielders to have.

Ambidexterity removes off-hand penalties, good for switching a single weapon between hands to emulate those who normally dual wield and can handle a weapon in either hand equally well even if they only have one available.

 

This is partly a case of You Get What You Pay For;

 

Anyone can pick up two weapons and try to attack with both (Multiple Attack); a trained fighter will have a number of Skills and Talents to do it truly effectively.

 

This is pretty much how I've handled it and seen it handled in game.

[Christopher]

There are a thousand different ways you could Model "Two Weapon fighting".

As Christopher Taylor pointed out, historically the offhand was used for defense or feinting and other support roles.

HSMA has rules for "Bind" maneuver, wich allows you to block your enemies weapons with one of your own - at wich point Dual Wielders would be at an advantage.

 

The offhand weapon is one of those diffuse bonuses, that can be used many different ways:

Simplest way might be "10 point CSL, only when using offhand weapons".

You might also use 6 or 8 point CSL, covering "all HTH combat with a 2 weapons."

 

If you want to solve it mostly via maneuvers or in high detail:

As I said, HSMA has the Bind Maneuver as well as other optional maneuvers that would work well.

Also weapons with odd Bonsues likes "+ OCV, only Block, Disarm, Takeaway, trip, etc.", wich makes them very good as offhand weapons, but not so good as main. Keep in mind that Shields can be used to either increases defenses or OCV for Block, wichever helps you more.

 

Combined Attack allows you to do more damage.

+1 DC would do the same, while being better against armored foes. And it could easily have the Special Effect "attack with both weapons at same time".

 

 

Having spend a bit of time translating Knight age weapons to Modern weapons for a Shadowrun campaign, I would differentiate between 3 weapons/useages of weapons:

Weapons of War are the kind you equip your professional army of hundreds of Soldiers with

Duelling weapons are the kind you use during a Duel. Maybe the Gladitorial Arena.

And then there are the weapons you give to a Militia/Townguard. Wich should mostly be cheap and it helps if they are not too effective in a Melee.

 

While being a potentially abysmal Duel weapon, the spear and halberd can be quite deadly in masses against an enemy charge, even when wielded by untrained men.

[jdounis]

Thank you all for your valuable suggestions, i am too against two weapons fighting as a major concept in melee combat from a historical view and balance issues.Now i will  offer to my players Multiple Attack with all it's restrictions and ways to ease them, and inform them that to strike more often and in various ways you have to be quicker! really quicker = buy extra speed.

[Surrealone]

Page 41 of Fantasy Hero Complete has the Two Weapon Fighting skill, which mentions offsetting the penalty for multiple power attacks.

 

Personally I try to discourage two weapon fighting in my fantasy hero games because historically if it was ever done it was almost always just using the offhand as defense and an occasional attack while the other was a feint.  One weapon and a shield is a much better option.  Until video games started using "dual wield" it wasn't really a thing in fantasy for the most part*.  

 

*Being that this is the internet, someone will inevitably chime in with "but example x!!!!" which is why I said "for the most part" here.

Dual-wielding using weapon specialization has been around since AD&D 1st Edition.  That's less to provide an example and more to point out that dual wielding has been around in role-playing games a hell of a lot longer than video game use/popularization thereof -- and it was hardly an edge case, as anyone could dual-wield in AD&D 1st Edition ... but no classes could do so without penalty.

 

Dual wielding was absolutely a thing in fantasy.  Aragorn wielding burning branches against the Nazgûl.  That's 1954!  Let's get a little more modern with Drizzt Do'Urden, the Forgotten Realms Drow of the late 1980's who fought with two longswords ... which is where all Drow knowing how to dual wield came from in AD&D, as well, I suspect.  These are just the quick/easy examples off the top of my head.  I seem to recall Rangers could dual wield without penalty in 2nd Edition AD&D provided they wore certain light armors (leather, studded leather).  Shall I go on?

 

I think you get the point:

Video games probably weren't the driver in fantasy ... and it is/was a lot more common than you seem to think (rendering your 'for the most part' qualifier quite questionable).

[Christopher R Taylor]

I played a lot of D&D and read the Dragon hardcore for a long time and you know how often dual wielding came up?

 

Never.  

 

People didn't do it because a big heavy weapon was always better.  People never used two weapons, they used a two-hander or a  shield and a sword.

 

It wasn't until 3rd edition came around and changed how it worked that dual wielding became a valid option - after video games popularized it.

[ghost-angel]

Dual Wielding has been a thing in D&D since at least 1988 when Drizzt was invented as the original dual-wielding munchkin machine in Salvatore's novels.

 

There were entire AD&D2E Subclasses dedicated to the idea.

 

I give no thoughts to validity within the system, but the idea has been around since way before video games popularized the idea.

[Surrealone]

I DO tend to think a sword/shield combo is more effective, especially when it comes to military units that work as a team.  But longsword/dagger, shortsword/dagger, longsword/shortsword, dual longsword, dual shortsword, dual axe, and dual dagger combos have been done to death in fantasy settings for a long, long time.

[Netzilla]

Sword and dagger is pretty ubiquitous in the swashbuckling genre. Dual weapons are also very common in martial arts films and comics (be it dual sticks, dual katana, paired sai, never mind more rediculous choices like paired nunchaku). I really don't think you can lay most the blame for dual weapon popularity on video games.

[Mister E]

Aragorn vs. the Nazgul on Weathertop is the origin of rangers using two-weapons in D&D:

 

https://youtu.be/52Kkr2vyXU8

[Christopher R Taylor]

I hate to repeat myself but there's a difference between "florentine" style fighting with two blades (using one for defense, etc as described above) and using both weapons for offense at the same time as a primary technique.

[womble]

Conan often used a short blade in his off hand.

 

Rapier/Main Gauche is a historical fencing style.

 

Singlestick (which actually has two sticks) is a style in manuals of arms.

 

Escrima.

 

Nazir in Robin of Sherwood.

 

Ambidex fighting was a thing in LARP (let alone tabletop RPGs) before there even were video games that could depict moving, fighting figures.

 

Video games were absolutely not the thing that drove the appearance of 2-weapon fighting in Fantasy.

 

Fighting 'ambi' is hard. It takes a lot more practice with paired weapons to be as effective in a fight as someone with sword and board. But if you're good at it, it's wicked in single combat. Less so in many-on-many when the passive protection of a shield or the reach of a 2-hander/pole really count.

 

Drawing that distinction between "Florentine" and "using both weapons for attack" by adding "as a primary technique" is strawmanning of the finest quality. The whole point of having a second weapon rather than a shield is that your potential for offense with the off-hand is increased.

[Christopher]

Aragorn vs. the Nazgul on Weathertop is the origin of rangers using two-weapons in D&D:

 

https://youtu.be/52Kkr2vyXU8

I think Legolas played into that class too, later on. He too wielded 2 weapons. And was a primary archer. And how many Archer Rangers were elf?

It might be better to say "the classes adopted to what people wanted to (or were likely to want to) play, based on what as popular at the time.

 

Back to "what was real":

In The Black Eye there is a in joke about poorly made Pictures of weapons/fights. Mentioning the morning star "with a ball as big as the users head, and a chain shorter then the hilt so the user would crush thier fingers the moment it came back."

So yeah, there is a history of missrepresenting weapons of War. Or not properly differentiating between Weapons of War and Weapons of Duel/Ceremony.

And then often not taking into account when the weapon was "the thing".

The Helbard was the weapon for armies for some time. As in 50 Years. In all the middle ages. Before it was never nessesary. Afterwards it turned into a ceremonial thing.

 

We always picture knights with Swords and Shield. But fact was that with Armor developments axe and hammer became the more effective weapons. To the point where even Kings are recorded to have used a twohanded Axe as primary weapon. Humanity has always been nothing but adaptable regarding Warfare.

With the rise of Firearms, armored infantery became useless. Riders became more important fighters.

Wich in turn lead to the Spear/Helbard making a comeback to protect the ranged combatants.

Wich resulted in the Helbard becomming prominent again (it could beat the spear in Melee while having most of the advantages).

 

The Roman Empire went through at least 3 Major reforms of the army, depending on the needs of thier time.

And that is before you consider that they used local auxiliaries wherever it made sense in tactical context.

 

Unless you are striving for extreme realism (at wich point you have to mention the exact timeframe and not include magic), you should never discourage a certain fighting Style.

Each fighting style should has distinct advantages/drawbacks, that the player can choose from.

Unarmed fighting might not be strong, but it has the advantage that it is damn easy to smuggle your fists anywhere.

The same applied to short swords and combat knifes - wich were in part developed to get around weapon laws.

Axe and Hammer are better against armored foes then the sword, but the sword might have been better in duels.

Throwing spears or axes are better against Shield wearing foes then Bows. (Get's through or at least stuck in it, making it unuseable).

Crossbows are better mass army weapons then the bow.

Firearms are even better mass army and anti-armor weapons then crossbows and throwing axes.

Firearms made shields and in part armor obsolete, wich in turn paved the way for using 2 melee weapons - for a time and in very specific contexts.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Axes are pretty much the ultimate weapon, they're just a bit less easy to use than a sword.  Hammers are a close second, mostly because you can hit someone with the side and its almost as effective as a straight on blow.

Swords are just cooler, have that cruciform look, and are easier to damage with (larger area).  Knights used two handed weapons too: spear, halberd, etc. 

[Ragitsu]

Drizzt Do'urden will always be close to my heart as the exemplar of two-weapon fighting.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

Page 41 of Fantasy Hero Complete has the Two Weapon Fighting skill, which mentions offsetting the penalty for multiple power attacks.

 

Personally I try to discourage two weapon fighting in my fantasy hero games because historically if it was ever done it was almost always just using the offhand as defense and an occasional attack while the other was a feint. One weapon and a shield is a much better option. Until video games started using "dual wield" it wasn't really a thing in fantasy for the most part*.

 

 

 

 

 

*Being that this is the internet, someone will inevitably chime in with "but example x!!!!" which is why I said "for the most part" here.

Good thing many of us use fictional settings where two weapon fighting is totally feasible, because its far too cool to veto for realism purposes IMO.

[Ragitsu]

 

Nito-Ryu is a Japanese style of swordfighting that involves wielding two blades at once.

[Christopher]

"War. War never changes."

Actually it does change: The weapons, armors and tactics have changed drastically over the course of centuries or even decades.

Anything has been used as a weapon by someone at some point because it made sense, no mater how ridiculous and useless it would have been in any other situation.

What was "the total hit" in one battle, could be a liability that defeated you the next one.

 

However this change is a persistent process. And in this point, War never changes.

 

 

Why am I saying this? Because this discussion somewhat elvolved into "wich is better". Wich is a non-starter. Everything was better then something else at one point, only to be rendered obsolete the next decade by a 3rd thing. The history of warfare and weaponry is a story of "Cyclical Imbalance":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

 

Two weapon fighting is one of those cases:

It makes sense if the enemy is not too heavily armored, while at the same time shields are not common/usefull enough.

Wich basically transaltes too: Firearms age, High Sea, Duels, Gladiatoral Fight, Fighting animals or Peasant Uprisings

[massey]

Miyamoto Musashi was a big fan of using two weapons.  I don't know if he got it from video games or not, though.

[eepjr24]

Not sure what your point is with Musashi, unless you are trying to establish the difficulty and rarity of two weapon use in RL? The fact that for some part of his life he employed two weapons is pretty much overshadowed by the fact that he dueled over 60 times without defeat (almost always with a bokuto, not a traditional sword much less two).

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well, and again, he didn't run in with two swords flailing, he used them as described above several times by various people: offhand is used primarily for defense, feint, distraction, and alternate attack.

[massey]

Not sure what your point is with Musashi, unless you are trying to establish the difficulty and rarity of two weapon use in RL? The fact that for some part of his life he employed two weapons is pretty much overshadowed by the fact that he dueled over 60 times without defeat (almost always with a bokuto, not a traditional sword much less two).

 

- E

 

Just because he was good, doesn't mean two weapon fighting was hard.  He also taught people how to fight that way.

 

I think I read somewhere he was a big fan of Forgotten Realms, and wanted to be like Drizzt.