I was going off your original description, which stated:
A warrior skilled with off handed weapon parry is able to use a weapon or object in his off hand defensively as well as a normal character can use a shield.
Combat Effect: A tiny object (no STR min) gives DCV equivalent to a small shield, a small object (STR min below 5) gives DCV equivalent to a medium shield, and a medium object (STR min 6+) gives DCV as a large shield.
This to me says that essentially the small weapon is a shield. Which means it gives DCV versus hth and ranged attacks. Reword it if this was not your intent. However, you cannot buy 3 point levels that apply to DCV versus hth and ranged attacks, and thus my higher cost structure.
Having not played "DnD" since the mid 80's (when I discovered Hero) I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here, since 1st Edition had no rules for two weapon fighting.
I am not arguing against making two weapon fighting. I was simply pointing out that your method was exceedingly cheap for the description you provided.
Frankly I think that stooping to name calling after you asked for feedback is rude. I don't have a personal stake in trashing your constructions, and if you read my other posts I think you will find that I do not troll the boards either. If you do not want constructive feedback in general, please feel free not to ask for it. If you do not like mine specifically, please feel free to ignore it.
I have no problems with your sequence here. However, what you originally stated was:
Note that the sequence is reversed. Again, if you change the sequence, my only comment would be that we differ greatly on the amount of limitation that the maneuver is worth.
I made every effort to stay civil in my reply, however if I offended you, you have my apologies. I was simply pointing out what I saw as flaws with the construction of the feats. YMMV, as always, and if it works in your campaign, wonderful.
- Ernie