Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dual-Wielding and The Ranger, Part 2: On the Unappreciated Genius of Zeb
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8260848" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>Look- I would point out that you sometimes tend to read back the interpretation from 2e back into 1e. Like with contingency (which you have mentioned several times now in reference to 1e, but ... was never introduced until UA in 1985).</p><p></p><p>But to make this glaringly obvious-</p><p>You have material from 1978 written by Gygax showing how TWF ("Attacks With Two Weapons") works. Because he wrote the drow section, which had the whole thing where it showed what happens when you have a weapon in each hand. You get an attack with each weapon. It wasn't in any way unclear, and it was the predicate for a whole series of modules! </p><p></p><p>Then, in 1979, you had the actual rule in the DMG. It's not unclear. Why? Here's the beginning of the rule:</p><p>"Employment of a second weapon is always at a penalty. The use of a second weapon causes the character to attack with his or her primary weapon at -2 and the secondary weapon at -4." </p><p></p><p>Get it? You attack with your primary weapon in that round at X, and with your secondary weapon at Y. Later it refers to the "attacks" in the round, and that you cannot use the secondary weapon as a parrying or shield (which, again, can only make sense if it is being used to attack <em>that round</em>).</p><p></p><p>The next year, we have the publication of Deities and Demigods, which expanded the range of permissible dexterity scores beyond 18, and showed that if you had a sufficiently high score (19+) you could attack with two weapons with no penalty- with examples in the book. The examples, of course, got the attacks in each round.</p><p></p><p>Then came the Fiend Folio in 1981, reiterating the rule for Drow- <em>the same rule that was reiterated in 1985 for Drow as a PC.</em></p><p></p><p>If this was unclear, you had Dragon Magazine, the house organ of TSR, publishing an article by Roger Moore (you may be familiar with him ....) in 1982. This was not a obscure article- it was reprinted as a "Best of Dragon Magazine" article as well. Anyway, the point of the article was two-fold; to expand the number of useable weapons (originally just a hand axe and dagger) and to deal with a few edge cases. Such as the 3/2 (Fighter get 3 attacks in 2 rounds with one weapon; what happens with two weapons, and when?). Notably, it treated as the baseline rule from the DMG that "Characters using a weapon in each hand will effectively double the number of attacks that they may make each round ..."</p><p></p><p>By 1985, and OA (Kensai, et al), UA (Drow, et al.) and Lankhmar (Grey Mouser, et al.), there could be no reasonable dispute about the application of the rule in 1e. Of course, there could be no reasonable dispute about the application in <em>1979</em>, and these rules were just simple extensions of the baseline (giving it as a special class ability, giving it as a special racial ability, and giving it as an ability within a campaign setting).</p><p></p><p>I am going to put this again nicely- there is, quite literally, NO OTHER INTERPRETATION of the rule in the DMG. If you have, say, an illusionist with a high dex (but I repeat myself) who is dual-wielding daggers pursuant to the DMG in 1e, what other possible interpretation could you have of the rule other than the illusionist attacks 2/1?</p><p></p><p>So when you say that there are other reasonable interpretations, I have yet to hear one. When you add in the sheer number of other sources, I am completely befuddled by what you are saying.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8260848, member: 7023840"] Look- I would point out that you sometimes tend to read back the interpretation from 2e back into 1e. Like with contingency (which you have mentioned several times now in reference to 1e, but ... was never introduced until UA in 1985). But to make this glaringly obvious- You have material from 1978 written by Gygax showing how TWF ("Attacks With Two Weapons") works. Because he wrote the drow section, which had the whole thing where it showed what happens when you have a weapon in each hand. You get an attack with each weapon. It wasn't in any way unclear, and it was the predicate for a whole series of modules! Then, in 1979, you had the actual rule in the DMG. It's not unclear. Why? Here's the beginning of the rule: "Employment of a second weapon is always at a penalty. The use of a second weapon causes the character to attack with his or her primary weapon at -2 and the secondary weapon at -4." Get it? You attack with your primary weapon in that round at X, and with your secondary weapon at Y. Later it refers to the "attacks" in the round, and that you cannot use the secondary weapon as a parrying or shield (which, again, can only make sense if it is being used to attack [I]that round[/I]). The next year, we have the publication of Deities and Demigods, which expanded the range of permissible dexterity scores beyond 18, and showed that if you had a sufficiently high score (19+) you could attack with two weapons with no penalty- with examples in the book. The examples, of course, got the attacks in each round. Then came the Fiend Folio in 1981, reiterating the rule for Drow- [I]the same rule that was reiterated in 1985 for Drow as a PC.[/I] If this was unclear, you had Dragon Magazine, the house organ of TSR, publishing an article by Roger Moore (you may be familiar with him ....) in 1982. This was not a obscure article- it was reprinted as a "Best of Dragon Magazine" article as well. Anyway, the point of the article was two-fold; to expand the number of useable weapons (originally just a hand axe and dagger) and to deal with a few edge cases. Such as the 3/2 (Fighter get 3 attacks in 2 rounds with one weapon; what happens with two weapons, and when?). Notably, it treated as the baseline rule from the DMG that "Characters using a weapon in each hand will effectively double the number of attacks that they may make each round ..." By 1985, and OA (Kensai, et al), UA (Drow, et al.) and Lankhmar (Grey Mouser, et al.), there could be no reasonable dispute about the application of the rule in 1e. Of course, there could be no reasonable dispute about the application in [I]1979[/I], and these rules were just simple extensions of the baseline (giving it as a special class ability, giving it as a special racial ability, and giving it as an ability within a campaign setting). I am going to put this again nicely- there is, quite literally, NO OTHER INTERPRETATION of the rule in the DMG. If you have, say, an illusionist with a high dex (but I repeat myself) who is dual-wielding daggers pursuant to the DMG in 1e, what other possible interpretation could you have of the rule other than the illusionist attacks 2/1? So when you say that there are other reasonable interpretations, I have yet to hear one. When you add in the sheer number of other sources, I am completely befuddled by what you are saying. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dual-Wielding and The Ranger, Part 2: On the Unappreciated Genius of Zeb
Top