Topic: Two Weapon Fighting?

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Rolemaster already has rules for using a weapon in the "off-hand" (-20 IIRC) and also uses an abstract based on any number of possible attacks made during a round covered by a single attack roll. So to learn a skill with a weapon used in the off-hand should not incur any extra penalty to use over the penalty in play. Therefore the ability to hold/use a weapon in both should not incur greater penalties above and beyond the benifits gained.

It is actually VERY HARD to learn how to fight actively with a weapon in both hands instead of only one in a hand.

It's what the weilder attempts that should be ruled upon not how it is learnt that needs to be reviewed. The current skill-purchasing rules seem to unfairly penalise two-weapon users AND are possibly the most misunderstood/abused rules in the game.

Much better I feel to simplify the application and abstract the results of those eventualities.

What we should be attempting is to achieve an easily understood and balanced combat system that defines the advantages and disadvantages of using two-weapons, as opposed to a single weapon or a shield/weapon combo.

To be honest, in the western fighting way (i.e. ruling out the martial art aspect), there is very few advantages in using two weapons... way less than its actual burden. It's the reason why two-weapon fighting never was really developed in western countries... and why the off-hand weapon is foremost a parry weapon in the few fencing schools that have one (aside from being, you know, ultra light!)

Considering that fighting with a TWC is balanced with fighting a single weapon or a shield/weapon combo is just as unrealistic as considering it's a good idea to fight with an oversized sword larger and longer than its wielder. It may look cool on the fantasy aspect of the game but it's totally unrealistic.

To me, having a TWC skill with a high cost is the least to do in order to allow such a feat (the way a GM could allow oversized swords if the character has some insane STRength).

[vroomfogle]

Make a melee attack a 50% - 100% action, thus allowing 2 attacks each at -50 if one wishes.   This could be against 1 foe or 2.  If you like the idea of attacking multiple foes, but not necessarily multiple attacks, adopt the MA rules that allow multiple opponents to be attacked at -30 for each, separate rolls.

Wielding two weapons should be something that is very rarely done and be reserved for special cases (e.g. that 7' sword demon), or for a secondary parry weapon only.    I like what OLF has said regarding viability of TWC.   I think it's just an arbitrary rules exception that should be removed, or at least the penalties should be much higher.

Another possibility is to expand upon the 50%-100%....this gives -50 to 2 attacks but make it so that if you are wielding two weapons it's only -40....in other words, for multiple attacks a second weapon lowers penalties for that attack by 10.   It's still somewhat arbitrary but makes it much less viable as it should.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

It is actually VERY HARD to learn how to fight actively with a weapon in both hands instead of only one in a hand.

I agree, but I wasn't exactly saying it wasn't. Rather that the difficulty should be reflected in the attempt to do rather than the attempt to learn.

The TWC skill currently isn't an entirely accurate reflection of the learning process, since it is too specialised, especially when the character has already done all the hard work in learning the weapons involved in the first place. It should be a more generalised penalty based on the size and weight of weapons. This penalty is overcome by the individuals skill with the weapon. This is why my suggestion that the skill with each weapon used be averaged.

It's what the wielder attempts that should be ruled upon not how it is learnt that needs to be reviewed. The current skill-purchasing rules seem to unfairly penalise two-weapon users AND are possibly the most misunderstood/abused rules in the game.

To be honest, in the western fighting way (i.e. ruling out the martial art aspect), there is very few advantages in using two weapons... Considering that fighting with a TWC is balanced with fighting a single weapon or a shield/weapon combo is just as unrealistic as considering it's a good idea...

Actually I meant balanced in respect of what a character gets for what they pay for in DP for the skill.

In RM, Shields are used in the off-hand with no offhand penalty, no cost in DP and provide a very substantial benefit and with no significant penalties (with the exception, perhaps, of encumberance).

In RM, just having a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other doesn't provide any significant disadvantages.. excepting that you aren't holding a shield!

Using a weapon in the off-hand to block like a shield gives very little benifit and with the -20 off-hand penalty for parrying is unlikely to be particularly effective as a parrying weapon. Historically thats why two-weapon fighting didn't take off... simply because shields were better! (at least before the advent of firearms)

However, against someone with only one weapon drawn and no shield the two weapon fighter should have a significant advantage, because he has more options to parry and the defender has two weapons to defend against.

Why I think the TWC skill is overly expensive is the assumpion that a attack roll is a single attack, as opposed to a number of stikes, feints and parries. This "single attack roll" can be currently achieved with a single weapon with no penalty. Because the TWC currently appears to allow the option of "doubling" the attacks that can be made, people think it is overpowered.. whereas, as you have pointed out, it obviously shouldn't be. By allowing a ANY character (regardless of whether they are two weapon, single weapon or shield/weapon) to spilt ANY of their melee OB attacks between multiple foes but retaining a singular attack roll removes this illusion.

 

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Using a weapon in the off-hand to block like a shield gives very little benifit and with the -20 off-hand penalty for parrying is unlikely to be particularly effective as a parrying weapon. Historically thats why two-weapon fighting didn't take off... simply because shields were better! (at least before the advent of firearms)

AFAIK, the -20 off-hand penalty only applies to a weapon you "actively" use while holding it with the off-hand; it doesn't apply to a weapon used "defensively" in the off-hand. In that case, you gain the weapon shield bonus, which is 5 save for parrying weapons (such as the main gauche) that have a +15. Considering a target shield is +20, I don't think the defensively used weapon is that bad... and it's in any case better than having nothing in your off-hand!

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Using a weapon in the off-hand to block like a shield gives very little benifit and with the -20 off-hand penalty for parrying is unlikely to be particularly effective as a parrying weapon. Historically thats why two-weapon fighting didn't take off... simply because shields were better! (at least before the advent of firearms)

AFAIK, the -20 off-hand penalty only applies to a weapon you "actively" use while holding it with the off-hand; it doesn't apply to a weapon used "defensively" in the off-hand. In that case, you gain the weapon shield bonus, which is 5 save for parrying weapons (such as the main gauche) that have a +15. Considering a target shield is +20, I don't think the defensively used weapon is that bad... and it's in any case better than having nothing in your off-hand!

Thereupon lies another explanation... a weapon CAN be used as a defensive manner and provide a bonus... yet not suffer an off-hand penalty for doing so....if it is considered defensive.. but only if not used actively. Hmm. Anyone else find that strange?

Personally, I fail to see how a parrying weapon could ever provide a DB if not used "Actively",as part of a parry yes. A shield would, because its a physical barrier that is capable of blocking the attacks of an opponent because of its size and positioning on the body. By it's very definition a parrying weapon is "Active" and should be subject to the off-hand penalty affecting the OB allocated to the parry.

[rdanhenry]

Use of a shield is also active in the normal sense. It simply is a case of not using the weapon to attack. It is used only reactively, rather than proactively. A second weapon used for defense only is not "parrying" in the game-technical sense of the term, since it is not attacking and not providing DB by converting OB. Since the techniques are *designed* for use with the secondary hand, any penalty that might exist would be included in the standard bonus to begin with.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

What rdanhenry said. Obviously, by "actively used", I meant "actively used as an offensive and defensive weapon" with OB to attack and DB obtained from the OB. It was opposed to the "passive, defensive use" of a shield.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

This is why I believe that there logically needs to be a Shield skill to allow "active parrying" with it rather than just providing db being an inert barrier (like a wall or other types of cover).

The trouble is the abstract combat round being defined as a single attack being the application of OB in an offensive and defensive manner, is that it allows the users OB of the "weapon" uesd to determine what in effect should logically be the users "active" use with a shield. Yet, unlike TWC, being untrained in a shield doesn't affect the user adversely in any way.

Realistically, it is significantly more difficult to use a shield and a single weapon together than it is to use a single weapon by itself..yet no weapon skill penalty is levied aganist the use of the weapon which is why I think the shield/weapon should also suffer in the same manner as a TW combo. So this is what I personally would do, this obviously requires considering the effects of my suggested solution as a whole rather than as individual points

1. Create a Shield skill.
(I'd suggest it uses the same DP cost as 2nd lowest Weapon Category, if a shield is worn passively then any skill penalty is appled directly to the weapon skill. It probably would be appropriate to assign an additional penalty equal to the DB it provides.)
2. Reduce the overall skill bonus of whatever item is being used in the "Off-hand" by the off-hand penalty as normal, this includes shields.
3. To determine "Active Use" Average the skill bonuses (as modifed in 2) when weapons & shield or 2-Weapon combinations are being used. This provides the overall OB available to the character for the round.
4. The current DB provided by a Shield is still added with the same effect to the characters DB as normal regardless of whether its use is Active or Passive.
5. A "Parrying weapon" may add its DB bonus against one opponent only if an element of the OB has been dedicated to parry with it.
6. The "Active use" of a 2-weapon combo allows the attacker to attack a single target which halves the effect of the defenders parry OR equally share the offensive bonus over an additonal target with no additional penalty.
7. Allow the single weapon armed attacker to normally share its offensive OB equally over any number of adjacent combatants with a cumulative -20 past the first.
8. Allow the attacker to evenly spread any OB dedicated to parry across as many targets as it wishes.
9. "Active" use of a shield in combination with weapon attacks allows it inherent DB to be applied to one additional attacker over the normal amount if the effective parry against that opponent exceeds the shields DB bonus.
10. The combatants positioning relative to the character acts as a penalty to the OB applied to either attacks or parries.

How this effects what is currently done, is that it eliminates the need for a seperate TWC skill by inherently incorporating penalties. 

[Marc R]

The root logic is broken for multiple attacks in every form really.

TWC, Shield and Weapon, Two attacks with one weapon, martial arts multi strike and the animal attacks ala "claw > if success Free grapple attack attempt > if success Free bite attack attempt".

The logic should really allow for splitting your attention in parallel (multiple weapons, clawing one foe and biting another, sword and shield) or in series (For multiple attacks within a round like kick/punch/kick or Rapier/Dagger or rapier/rapier/rapier). . . .and apply uniformly to them all.

i.e. whatever rule applies to sword/dagger should apply to sword/shield should apply to claw/bite should apply to martial arts multi strikes.

If you are making two actions simultaneously, like shield/sword or dagger/sword, they should use the same mechanism.

If you're stringing a combo like claw>grapple>Bite, or dagger>sword>dagger or punch>punch>punch or sword>sword>sword they should use the same logic.

If a martial artist can do it, a swordsman should be able to . . .and lions can do it, then a human should be able to. . . .if a lion can do a claw>grapple>bite in 10sec, then a human should be able to do a tackle/grapple/choke in 10sec.

The root problem is "rules by exception". . .when you address it as "The TWC problem" you're still looking at it as an exception. . .it should simply be "The combat problem of multiple attack actions."

[Grinnen Baeritt]

The root logic is broken for multiple attacks in every form really....

i.e. whatever rule applies to sword/dagger should apply to sword/shield should apply to claw/bite should apply to martial arts multi strikes.

If you are making two actions simultaneously, like shield/sword or dagger/sword, they should use the same mechanism.

I agree wholeheartedly... what I would change is the logic of animal attacks.. in that any followup attack is actually performed with a preset reserve of OB specifically for that purpose... much like OB set aside to parry but isn't used, which has been reduced assuming that a previous attack has been made.. or perhaps delayed until the next round as a seperate action wherupon it recieves a bonus.

The root problem is "rules by exception". . .when you address it as "The TWC problem" you're still looking at it as an exception. . .it should simply be "The combat problem of multiple attack actions."

Which in my clumsy way was what I was trying to explain. 

[providence13]

*I'd personally take the opportunity here to remove the Reverse Strike Skill here as well , by simply applying a bonus to the defenders DB based upon the positional modifier... e.g +15 to the targets DB if in the attackers flank.
 
Do you find it cumbersome?
It's for applying OB/DB to rear & flank, right. I would use it for DB myself, but if used for an attack.. then I guess we're back to the two "attack" rolls/rnd.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

*I'd personally take the opportunity here to remove the Reverse Strike Skill here as well , by simply applying a bonus to the defenders DB based upon the positional modifier... e.g +15 to the targets DB if in the attackers flank.
 
Do you find it cumbersome?
It's for applying OB/DB to rear & flank, right. I would use it for DB myself, but if used for an attack.. then I guess we're back to the two "attack" rolls/rnd.

I was under the (probably misguided) impression that it was a skill for attacking someone behind you. If that's only who you attack then no.. it would always only need one. However, if using the multiple attacks = one attack roll abstract was used then it could be a matter of adding an additional penalty to that for including a second target. Once again the same attack roll being used, however splitting the OB evenly between the targets.

For example a character has a 100 OB, and has an enemy both to the rear and directly ahead. He (during his round) wishes to attempt to strike both.  Assuming no allocation to parry, he splits his OB into two... +50 to attack the combatant to the front, and +50 to the rear.
Both attacks would be modified by a multiple attack attempt (lets say -20), the attack to the rear further is further reduced by the attack bonus that the attacker would recieve (lets say -50). This means that the fighter effective OB versus the one in front is 50-20 = 30, and the one to the rear. 50-20-50 = -20.  One attack roll, two results. Obviously, barring oe results an unlikely hit for the target behind. However, a singular attempt to strike a combatant behind should only suffer a simple -50.

My point was, that if this is done this could remove the requirement for a "Reverse Strike" skill entirely.

 

[Nortti]

I know this is very old topic already but I have been wondering about how to make two weapon fighting work.

I couldnt find a satisfactory solution so I used magic-items instead. Paired magical swords that incur no penalty and you can make 2 attacks.

Good ol magic - solves the hard situations every time

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I know this is very old topic already but I have been wondering about how to make two weapon fighting work.

In a nutshell, I make it work similarly to weapon katas (and Martial Arts): only one attack roll but additional critical + miscellaneous bonuses as the TWC skill ranks (and skill OB) increase.
I can post my entire house rules about the matter, if you're interested.

[Dakadin]

I know this is very old topic already but I have been wondering about how to make two weapon fighting work.

In a nutshell, I make it work similarly to weapon katas (and Martial Arts): only one attack roll but additional critical + miscellaneous bonuses as the TWC skill ranks (and skill OB) increase.
I can post my entire house rules about the matter, if you're interested.

I would be interested in see your house rules for it.

[intothatdarkness]

I kept mine simple. The player used the skill bonus from the lowest of the weapon skills or two-handed combo skill. One roll for each attack. So if a character was using a dagger (OB 45), a mace (OB 55) and two-weapon combo (skill bonus 20), the ob for each attack would be 20 (based on the lowest of the three).

[providence13]

I kept mine simple. The player used the skill bonus from the lowest of the weapon skills or two-handed combo skill. One roll for each attack. So if a character was using a dagger (OB 45), a mace (OB 55) and two-weapon combo (skill bonus 20), the ob for each attack would be 20 (based on the lowest of the three).

Same here, right now. I think it's RAW for RMSS/FRP, at least.
-20 for off hand
-20 for changing targets (Most of the time Haste or Adrenal Speed means the 1st target drops before all of the attacks are used up for the round. Then the PC wants to attack someone else. Additional penalties for moving toward 2nd target. Movement is an action..)

[Nortti]

I know this is very old topic already but I have been wondering about how to make two weapon fighting work.

In a nutshell, I make it work similarly to weapon katas (and Martial Arts): only one attack roll but additional critical + miscellaneous bonuses as the TWC skill ranks (and skill OB) increase.
I can post my entire house rules about the matter, if you're interested.

I would be interested in see your house rules for it.

Me too.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I never liked how you were able to make two attack rolls with a weapon-combo, especially since an attack roll was already supposed to be a succession of attacks. So I came up with my own rules, based on the MA weapon kata rules.

   1. TWC cost: add the cost of each weapon.
   E.g., a character has a cost of 2/7 in one-hand slashing and 3/8 in one-hand crushing. A broadsword/shortsword TWC would cost him 4/14, a broadsword/mace twc would cost 5/15 whilst a mace/hammer TWC would cost 6/16.

   It's not possible to develop a TWC for a weapon with no rapid development cost.
   Option: only use the normal development figure.
   E.g., the character has a cost of 3/9 one-hand slashing and 7 in one-hand crushing. A shortsword/hammer TWC would cost him 10.

   2. TWC skill max ranks: one cannot develop more skill ranks in TWC than the lowest skill ranks of the matching weapon skills.

   3.Benefits:

• +5 to DB,
• TWC user can choose the weapon table between both weapon tables for damage calculation,
• TWC user inflicts an additional critical of the same severity for the second weapon.

   E.g., a character rolls a score of 133 with his broadsword/mace combo against an AT17. It gives a 12CS on the broadsword table and 16DK on the mace table. The character chooses to inflict 16 damage points, with a DK and a DS criticals.

   4. Note: only one attack roll is made. OTOH, two different rolls are made for the criticals.
 
   5. As the TWC user progresses, he gains additional benefits:

Minimal OB	| Minimal # of ranks	| Benefits
+120	| 15	| The DB bonus becomes +10
+140	| 20	| The TWC user gains a +10 to OB with his TWC skill
+150	| 25	| The DB bonus becomes +15
+165	| 30	| The OB bonus becomes +20

Note: the "minimal OB" is without any bonus due to items or spells.
 
   6. If one weapon has a bonus or each weapon has a different bonus, the average of the bonuses is added to the TWC skill.

[jdale]

TWC user can choose the weapon table between both weapon tables for damage calculation...
E.g., a character rolls a score of 133 with his broadsword/mace combo against an AT17. It gives a 12CS on the broadsword table and 16DK on the mace table. The character chooses to inflict 16 damage points, with a DK and a DS criticals.

That seems cumbersome and also gives weird results. If you use a sword and dagger (classic two-weapon style), you do less damage than a sword alone.


I do agree with the basic idea that, given the abstraction of a 10 second combat round, it makes sense to make only a single attack, with some bonus. It's possible (though difficult) to be making attacks with both weapons but that doesn't need to be represented by two attack rolls.

On the other hand, I think two weapon is defensively better than one. Two-weapon fighting rules usually underplay this in favor of adding more offense. A simple implementation would be to allow the fighter to apply their parry against two opponents, even though they get an attack roll against only one of them. Multiple opponents is the circumstance that Musashi recommended two weapons for, after all: "It is better to use two swords rather than one when you are fighting a mob, and especially if you want to take a prisoner." A DB bonus is also not unreasonable.