Two weapon fighting style
skr...@my-deja.com
some information I've been told, have experimented with and have a
feeling for. I mean this to be an open forum discussion on how to
improve the "Two Weapon Style" we have in 3e. Please read the entire
post before commenting to individual bits and peices.
First, based on the information I've read from G.Silver (the anti-rapier
Englishman) and from e-mail converstions I've had with several combat
reenacters:
1. Two weapon style is not a respected form of combat when trying to
kill an armored opponent.
2. Sword and shield is typically the most effective fighting method
3. Two handed large weapons, in the hands of a skilled person can be a
match for a sword and shield user.
4. Thrusting attacks are very deadly, but a bit harder to successfully
land than a normal swing.
Second, based upon my own two weapon fighting (swords) vs single swords,
unarmored (martial arts style):
1. two equal length light swords offer a larger number of directions
from which you can make an attack, and offers an enhancement in defense
over a single one-handed light sword.
2. Two weapons does not increase the number of attacks you can make, but
it does increase the chance that you will land a swing or a thrust.
3. Single handed swings lack the power and armor penetrating ability of
a double hand swing.
4. Two weapon fighting still allows single weapon thrusts without
restricting reach, as two hands on a thrusting sword would restrict
reach, while still providing an added level of defense with the off-hand
weapon.
5. Two similar sized swords can provide defense against large heavy
weapons, when used in conjunction to block that weapon. Use both swords
to hit the haft of large weapons to block/knock it away, then move
inside the range of the large weapon to deliver a quick thrust or swing.
-A shield can also be used this way, with more effectiveness.
6. The defensive value of a dagger is less than the defensive value of a
larger heavier weapon in the off hand.
7. the offensive value of a dagger is less than the defensive value of
a longer weapon in the off hand.
6. The defensive value of any weapon in the off hand is less than the
defensive value of a shield in the off hand.
third, consider possible fantasy scenarios, not just soldier vs.
soldier:
1. Against large creatures, the shield's defensive value decreases.
2. Against large creatures, the defensive value of weapons disappears.
3. Against large creatures, larger weapons become more valuable than
shields.
4. Many opponents do not have much in the way of armor or typical
weaponry. There are potetially limitless combat techniques that would
prove to be more efficient vs strange creatures than typical man vs man
combat.
My suggestions, which are always open for debate and suggestion, are as
follows. I'm hoping we can come up with the amounts and types of
modifiers:
1. Two weapon style should increase the odds of landing a single
attack. it should not equal 2 attacks at reduced chance. (the 3e two
weapon rules average out to cause more damage than single weapon
attacks, so long as AC's arent too high. Once you need a 16 or higher
to hit, two weapon begins to become less effective than single
weapons).
2. Two weapon style should be a better offensive strategy than single
one handed weapon style.
3. Weapon and shield should be a better defensive option than two
weapon is an offensive option.
4. Two handed weapons should be a better offensive strategy than two
weapon style, when figuring in damage.
5. Two handed weapons should provide better defense than lighter one
handed weapons, when defending against large weapons.
6. Two handed weapons should provide worse defense than lighter one
handed weapons when defending against small weapons.
7. Weapons should affect your defense according to size and type.
(quarterstaffs are much better defensive weapons than daggers)
8. Shields should provide defense based upon size.
9. Shields should provide more defensive bonusses than weapons of
similar size.
10. Weapons should be ineffective as defensive tools vs weapons that
are much larger than they are. (A dagger should not be able to block a
great axe). Shields should also become ineffective defensive tools vs
very large weapons, such as a small shield vs. a giant's club.
11. Two handed weapons should always be capable of dealing more damage
than two weapon style. Two weapon style may circumvent this fact by
allowing an attacker to hit smaller & quicker opponents.
12. it looks like I'm building a very complicated combat system.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BardValerian
One word my friend, GURPS.
Even if you never ever game in the GURPS system, i think you'll find that GURPS
has already incorporated about 10 of your 12 postulates into its system. How
they do it may ease your need for a more logical system and allow you to
incorporate it into your system of choice.
If you want, i can note briefly how GURPS deals with each of your statements
above...
valerian
~
Bryan J. Maloney
> 1. Two weapon style is not a respected form of combat when trying to
> kill an armored opponent.
Because one is inadequately protected. While an attack might skitter off
an opponent's armor, he has a much greater chance of plastering Mr.
two-sword than he you had a shield. Likewise, it is very easy to get the
two swords messed up with each other.
> 2. Sword and shield is typically the most effective fighting method
Because the shield works.
> 3. Two handed large weapons, in the hands of a skilled person can be a
> match for a sword and shield user.
Because the weapon, if designed well, can be used quickly enough to make
up for the deficiency.
> 4. Thrusting attacks are very deadly, but a bit harder to successfully
> land than a normal swing.
Exactly.
> 4. Two weapon fighting still allows single weapon thrusts without
> restricting reach, as two hands on a thrusting sword would restrict
> reach, while still providing an added level of defense with the off-hand
> weapon.
It should be noted that, once very heavy armor became popular, the masters
taught to not bother cutting against it, since it was often resistant
against even a two-handed blow with a greatsword. Instead, they
recommended using the sword like a spear.
> 6. The defensive value of a dagger is less than the defensive value of a
> larger heavier weapon in the off hand.
> 7. the offensive value of a dagger is less than the defensive value of
> a longer weapon in the off hand.
> 9. The defensive value of any weapon in the off hand is less than the
> defensive value of a shield in the off hand.
10. Defense is a way to extend your life and generally works better than
offense.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Bradd W. Szonye
>My suggestions, which are always open for debate and suggestion, are as
>follows. I'm hoping we can come up with the amounts and types of
>modifiers:
>
>1. Two weapon style should increase the odds of landing a single
>attack. it should not equal 2 attacks at reduced chance. (the 3e two
>weapon rules average out to cause more damage than single weapon
>attacks, so long as AC's arent too high. Once you need a 16 or higher
>to hit, two weapon begins to become less effective than single
>weapons).
Please don't forget that one round does not necessarily equal one swing.
Under most circumstances, an extra attack is equivalent to a better-odds
single attack, because all that really matters for D&D is damage per
round. You're right about the 16+ target number, though. (Well, at a 16
target, two-weapon is the same as single-weapon.)
Then again, if you need 16 to hit, you're dealing with a low-skill or
high-armor situation, which is not two-weapon's strong suit.
Overall, I don't think this criterion is important. The next one (2WS is
better than 1HS) reflects the design goals better.
>2. Two weapon style should be a better offensive strategy than single
>one handed weapon style.
This is true except when the target number is 16 (they are equal) or
17-19 (single-handed is better).
>3. Weapon and shield should be a better defensive option than two
>weapon is an offensive option.
I have found this to already be true; with the 2E rules (where you can
use 2WS without the -2 penalty), they are about equal unless you get
multiple attacks, at which point W+S is clearly superior. In 3E,
weapon+shield style is always slightly superior to 2WS.
(To figure this, calculate the average damage per round for a typically
equipped W+S fighter versus a 2WS fighter of the same level. The W+S
should exceed the 2WS damage per round by a significant amount.)
>4. Two handed weapons should be a better offensive strategy than two
>weapon style, when figuring in damage.
I haven't run the numbers on this, but it should be close for
high-strength characters. The 2HS has similar damage to the 2WS (2d6 vs
1d8+1d6), has equivalent Strength bonuses (1.5x vs 1x+.5x), but no
attack penalty.
>5. Two handed weapons should provide better defense than lighter one
>handed weapons, when defending against large weapons.
Why? In the normal historical period of D&D, dodging and shield use are
much more important to defense than parrying. Pre-Renaissance, parrying
was a last-resort defense.
This is more important if you are running a cinematic rather than
historical campaign, or if you are running Renaissance-era. In those
cases, parrying may be significant. Abstract it with the Expertise feat
as intended.
>6. Two handed weapons should provide worse defense than lighter one
>handed weapons when defending against small weapons.
Same comment.
>7. Weapons should affect your defense according to size and type.
>(quarterstaffs are much better defensive weapons than daggers)
Same comment.
>8. Shields should provide defense based upon size.
They do.
>9. Shields should provide more defensive bonusses than weapons of
>similar size.
They do.
>10. Weapons should be ineffective as defensive tools vs weapons that
>are much larger than they are. (A dagger should not be able to block a
>great axe). Shields should also become ineffective defensive tools vs
>very large weapons, such as a small shield vs. a giant's club.
Since D&D already ignores parrying (except using Expertise), this is
also mostly true.
>11. Two handed weapons should always be capable of dealing more damage
>than two weapon style. Two weapon style may circumvent this fact by
>allowing an attacker to hit smaller & quicker opponents.
This is true on average, but not as a maximum. Don't forget, however,
that you can have twice as much offensive magic when you use two
weapons. Does that change your goals at all?
>12. it looks like I'm building a very complicated combat system.
Nah. It looks like the core system already provides most of what you're
looking for. You may want a few tweaks here and there. You probably want
to skip the whole area of "weapon parrying stats," because it will add
more calculation without adding any more real flavor. (IMO.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
skr...@my-deja.com
> >3. Weapon and shield should be a better defensive option than two
> >weapon is an offensive option.
>
> I have found this to already be true; with the 2E rules (where you can
> use 2WS without the -2 penalty), they are about equal unless you get
> multiple attacks, at which point W+S is clearly superior. In 3E,
> weapon+shield style is always slightly superior to 2WS.
>
> (To figure this, calculate the average damage per round for a
typically
> equipped W+S fighter versus a 2WS fighter of the same level. The W+S
> should exceed the 2WS damage per round by a significant amount.)
Actually, using 4th level fighters with specialization, the
shield/longsword vs. 2 short swords had nearly identical damage per
round (4.25 vs 4.2). They had ACs of 18 & 16 respectively, and fought
each other. As relative ACs go up, sword and shield benefits, as ACs go
down, two weapon benefits. The shield doesn't alter this basic fact of
the 3e 2 weapon style.
>
> >5. Two handed weapons should provide better defense than lighter one
> >handed weapons, when defending against large weapons.
>
> Why? In the normal historical period of D&D, dodging and shield use
are
> much more important to defense than parrying. Pre-Renaissance,
parrying
> was a last-resort defense.
Its a simple concept. DnD is not historical combat. There are real
giants, trolls and dragons to fight. Human opponents are only a small
concern. It still stands to reason that blocking a large club blow with
a 2 handed sword is still better than trying to block it with a
dagger.
> >11. Two handed weapons should always be capable of dealing more
damage
> >than two weapon style. Two weapon style may circumvent this fact by
> >allowing an attacker to hit smaller & quicker opponents.
>
> This is true on average, but not as a maximum. Don't forget, however,
> that you can have twice as much offensive magic when you use two
> weapons. Does that change your goals at all?
Obviously the right kind of magic can throw a wrench into any plans. As
it is, two shortswords is often better than one 2-handed sword. 2
shortwords are even better by comparison vs weapons of lesser ability
than the 2-handed sword.
Jubilation T. Cornpone
>Its a simple concept. DnD is not historical combat. There are real
It's a simple logical fallacy--when in doubt, pull out this bullshit. Gee, if
NO REALITY AT ALL applys to D&D, then there is NO BASIS AT ALL to critique any
of the D&D rule decisions. In other words, why not admit that there just
might be some possibility of the model design might be based on total
pig-ignorance on the part of the designers? Why pull out the brain-dead
rationalization?
---
If what you have to say is so important, why are you wasting your time here?
Bradd W. Szonye
>> >5. Two handed weapons should provide better defense than lighter one
>> >handed weapons, when defending against large weapons.
>>
>> Why? In the normal historical period of D&D, dodging and shield use
>> are much more important to defense than parrying. Pre-Renaissance,
>> parrying was a last-resort defense.
>
>Its a simple concept. DnD is not historical combat. There are real
>giants, trolls and dragons to fight. Human opponents are only a small
>concern. It still stands to reason that blocking a large club blow
>with a 2 handed sword is still better than trying to block it with a
>dagger.
1. A 2-handed sword may still not be good enough at blocking to result
in a tangible difference in skill. You are, after all, talking about
blocking the blows of giants.
2. The "it's fantasy argument" is not a very good one, *especially* when
you are looking to make things more "realistic." If you want realism in
your parrying rules, then realize that medieval Europeans mostly used
shields to block, not weapons.
>> >11. Two handed weapons should always be capable of dealing more
>> >damage than two weapon style. Two weapon style may circumvent this
>> >fact by allowing an attacker to hit smaller & quicker opponents.
>>
>> This is true on average, but not as a maximum. Don't forget, however,
>> that you can have twice as much offensive magic when you use two
>> weapons. Does that change your goals at all?
>
>Obviously the right kind of magic can throw a wrench into any plans.
>As it is, two shortswords is often better than one 2-handed sword. 2
>shortwords are even better by comparison vs weapons of lesser ability
>than the 2-handed sword.
How are two shortswords "often better than" one 2-handed sword? The
shortswords do 2d6 + 1½ Strength damage if both hit; the greatsword does
2d6 + 1½ Strength damage if it hits. However, the shortswords are at a
*minimum* -2 to hit to each attack, thus effectively reducing their
damage by at least 10%. That's if you spend 2 feats, or you're a ranger.
If not, then the penalties are much worse. Two magic shortswords *may*
be better than a magic greatsword, *if* the total magic bonus of the
shortswords exceeds that of the greatsword.
Michael Scott Brown
> But even then, it is easier to hit a target more square on
> when you're concentrating on one punch rather than a combo.
Bah.
-Michael
Darius Kalshane
bra...@concentric.net (Bradd W. Szonye) wrote:
> How are two shortswords "often better than" one 2-handed sword? The
> shortswords do 2d6 + 1½ Strength damage if both hit; the greatsword
does
> 2d6 + 1½ Strength damage if it hits. However, the shortswords are at a
> *minimum* -2 to hit to each attack, thus effectively reducing their
> damage by at least 10%. That's if you spend 2 feats, or you're a
ranger.
> If not, then the penalties are much worse. Two magic shortswords *may*
> be better than a magic greatsword, *if* the total magic bonus of the
> shortswords exceeds that of the greatsword.
Easy. Weapon Specialization in Short Sword. +2 to damage with each
weapon. But I still don't see what everyone's fuss is about two-weapon
style still having to hit penalties even in a best case scenario. It
makes sense, both realistically and for game balance. Though only place
the penalties might be iffy is two really light weapons like daggers or
barehanded. But even then, it is easier to hit a target more square on
when you're concentrating on one punch rather than a combo.
Darius Kalshane
"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Darius Kalshane" <darius_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qu423
> > when you're concentrating on one punch rather than a combo.
>
You realize this only makes you sound like an idiot that can't defend
his position. *shrugs*
Michael Scott Brown
> > "Darius Kalshane" <darius_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8qu423
> > > when you're concentrating on one punch rather than a combo.
> >
>
> You realize this only makes you sound like an idiot that can't defend
> his position. *shrugs*
<falls on the floor laughing>
Please post again on the subject when you have acquired 17 years of
martial arts training.
You were, quite simply, so horribly wrong that a Quickened Bah was all
that was needed.
Only an idiot from a Western movie ever succeeds at aiming "one punch"
to any effect.
To pound a person senseless properly, you will find much more
reliability in making attack combinations that, oh, say, do things like
*getting the other guy's arms out of the way* and then striking for the
opening created.
-Michael
Jason Etheridge
>> > But even then, it is easier to hit a target more square on
>> > when you're concentrating on one punch rather than a combo.
>>
>
>You realize this only makes you sound like an idiot that can't defend
>his position. *shrugs*
You concentrate on being situationally aware. Your combos should be
ingrained to the point where you don't have to think about them except
in abstract.
Andrew Tellez
Darius Kalshane wrote:
>
> In article <edRXKpRKAHA.249@cpmsnbbsa09>,
> "Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> > "Darius Kalshane" <darius_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8qu423
> > > But even then, it is easier to hit a target more square on
> > > when you're concentrating on one punch rather than a combo.
> >
> > Bah.
>
> You realize this only makes you sound like an idiot that can't defend
> his position. *shrugs*
Well, you're wrong. In the game, it's usually easier to hit with two
attacks at -2 than with one, since you get two rolls. I'll leave the
math as an exercise, but the chances of scoring a hit improve when
making two rolls. In real life, even someone with my paltry skill will
hit at least as often when both hands are in use.
Darius Kalshane
Andrew Tellez <no...@gwu.edu> wrote:
> Well, you're wrong. In the game, it's usually easier to hit with two
> attacks at -2 than with one, since you get two rolls. I'll leave the
> math as an exercise, but the chances of scoring a hit improve when
> making two rolls. In real life, even someone with my paltry skill
will
> hit at least as often when both hands are in use.
I was defending the fact that penalties are there. I won't deny that the
more attacks you make are going to increase your chance of hitting
something. I was simply defending the rules giving you a penalty to hit
with each weapon to take into account the fact that it is a little more
awkward. Overall, the two weapons are better offensively, but that's
made up in the system through the extra attack the style grants.
However, being able to use two weapons with no to hit penalty
whatsoever isn't realistic. The system is balanced as is.
Darius Kalshane
"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> > You realize this only makes you sound like an idiot that can't
defend
> > his position. *shrugs*
>
> <falls on the floor laughing>
>
> Please post again on the subject when you have acquired 17 years
of
> martial arts training.
> You were, quite simply, so horribly wrong that a Quickened Bah was
all
> that was needed.
Still makes you sounds like an asshole. I don't know you, I don't know
your background. Saying "Bah" makes you sound like you don't know how to
defend your point and are trying to hide it behind snidishness.
> Only an idiot from a Western movie ever succeeds at aiming "one
punch"
> to any effect.
> To pound a person senseless properly, you will find much more
> reliability in making attack combinations that, oh, say, do things
like
> *getting the other guy's arms out of the way* and then striking for
the
> opening created.
Yes, you need combos if you're ever going to get past an opponents
defenses. And D&D combat is abstracted to the point that it's assumed
you are always using combos, the attack rolls represent swings you make
that actually stand a chance at penetrating the opponents defense.
However, to try to get to the point I was trying to make was about raw
accuracy, not combat effectiveness. Yes, using two weapons or two fists,
or whatever is more effective than just one because it grants you more
possible attack patterns and angles. However, that diversity is a trade
off for a minor reduction in your accuracy. When was the last time you
saw some try to "combo" their way through three boards? I know I haven't
seen it. They make one focused strike. _That_ is the point I was getting
at. The two-weapon fighting penalties in the 3e system make sense within
the system.
Brian
"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OMtzXAbKAHA.278@cpmsnbbsa07...
> "Darius Kalshane" <darius_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > "Darius Kalshane" <darius_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8qu423
> > > > when you're concentrating on one punch rather than a combo.
> > >
> >
> > You realize this only makes you sound like an idiot that can't defend
> > his position. *shrugs*
>
> <falls on the floor laughing>
>
> Please post again on the subject when you have acquired 17 years of
> martial arts training.
> You were, quite simply, so horribly wrong that a Quickened Bah was all
> that was needed.
>
> to any effect.
> To pound a person senseless properly, you will find much more
> reliability in making attack combinations that, oh, say, do things like
> *getting the other guy's arms out of the way* and then striking for the
> opening created.
>
>
Exactly! By and large, this is how tournament fights are won in the SCA.
You have to get your opponent to open himself up while you hide better than
he attacks. In single combat, the sword and shield is probably your best
option.
You have to practice lots of combo's, and practice each and every individual
strike. You have to practice moving while simultaneously swinging. You
have to design combo's that you can use while moving forward and backwards.
You have to learn how to use your shield effectively to keep your opponent
at range and how to use it to move your opponent's shield out of the way. I
have personally experienced an individual who could use his second sword to
be as effective as a shield. An inverted, basket-hilted longsword can be
used as a shield and still deliver effective stabbing attacks. About the
only thing you really can't do with it is defend against thrust attacks
(like spears), well you can, you just have to parry instead of block. You
also can't do shield rushes (really fun to do, by the way).
Michael Scott Brown
> > Please post again on the subject when you have acquired 17 years of
> > martial arts training. You were, quite simply, so horribly wrong that a
Quickened Bah was
> > all that was needed.
>
> your background. Saying "Bah" makes you sound like you don't know how to
> defend your point and are trying to hide it behind snidishness.
Newbie.
> However, to try to get to the point I was trying to make was about raw
> accuracy, not combat effectiveness. Yes, using two weapons or two fists,
> or whatever is more effective than just one because it grants you more
> possible attack patterns and angles. However, that diversity is a trade
> off for a minor reduction in your accuracy. When was the last time you
> saw some try to "combo" their way through three boards?
It's a common part of high rank 'hard style' tests and martial
demonstrations. You need to get out more.
-Michael
Sheitan
> > Still makes you sounds like an asshole. I don't know you, I don't know
> > your background. Saying "Bah" makes you sound like you don't know how to
> > defend your point and are trying to hide it behind snidishness.
>
> Newbie.
>
ROTFL!
- Sheitan
Stephenls
> ROTFL!
>
> - Sheitan
I second. :-)
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Life without pain isn't real" -Isamu Dyson, Macross Plus
Darius Kalshane
"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Darius Kalshane" <darius_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8r2i15
> > > Please post again on the subject when you have acquired 17
years of
> > > martial arts training. You were, quite simply, so horribly wrong
that a
> Quickened Bah was
> > > all that was needed.
> >
raw
> > accuracy, not combat effectiveness. Yes, using two weapons or two
fists,
> > or whatever is more effective than just one because it grants you
more
> > possible attack patterns and angles. However, that diversity is a
trade
> > off for a minor reduction in your accuracy. When was the last time
you
> > saw some try to "combo" their way through three boards?
>
> It's a common part of high rank 'hard style' tests and martial
> demonstrations. You need to get out more.
I've been to tournaments. I've never seen a board or stack of boards
struck with more than one blow unless they screwed up the first strike.
You claim to have studied for 17 years. Maybe you have, I don't know.
I've only studied for 2. But I have never spoken to a black belt IRL as
arrogant, pompous and close-minded as you seem to be. A black belt is
supposed to be a teacher and guide for those less knowledgable and less-
skilled than themselves, not someone that looks down upon the rest of
the world. You might need to rethink what those years of training have
actually accomplished for you. Yeah, you could beat the shit out of
most people on the street. But have you actually improved yourself as a
person?
Stephenls
> I've been to tournaments. I've never seen a board or stack of boards
> struck with more than one blow unless they screwed up the first
> strike.
>
> You claim to have studied for 17 years. Maybe you have, I don't know.
> I've only studied for 2. But I have never spoken to a black belt IRL
> as arrogant, pompous and close-minded as you seem to be. A black belt
> is supposed to be a teacher and guide for those less knowledgable and
> less- skilled than themselves, not someone that looks down upon the
> rest of the world. You might need to rethink what those years of
> training have actually accomplished for you. Yeah, you could beat the
> shit out of most people on the street. But have you actually improved
> yourself as a person?
LoL!