doctorhook
Legend
This seems unbalanced. You'll have a better chance to hit with two separate attack rolls, but you also want to do as much damage on two hits as the guy who only gets one attack? Nah man, that ain't fair.
What do you expect out of dual wielding?
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
"None of the Above"
At least, I don't have a specific preference.
The three basic styles...sword and board, 2H, and dual...should each involve different trade-offs so that there are trade-offs, each has strengths and weaknesses, so that all 3 are equally valid choices.
I don't really care at all about historical accuracy or realism. In fact, the opposite. I'd rather a game make no attempt to be accurate or realistic because doing so always seems to lead to breaking those three criteria.
I'm even fine with rules that don't distinguish between them at all (Dungeon World?), although it is fun if the choices lead to playstyle differences.
In The One Ring, which for a long time had no "dual wield" option, I know some tables used the house rule that dual wielding was equivalent to using a 2H weapon: same encumbrance (2 weapons instead of one big one), same damage, same defense. It seemed to work just fine.
At least, I don't have a specific preference.
The three basic styles...sword and board, 2H, and dual...should each involve different trade-offs so that there are trade-offs, each has strengths and weaknesses, so that all 3 are equally valid choices.
I don't really care at all about historical accuracy or realism. In fact, the opposite. I'd rather a game make no attempt to be accurate or realistic because doing so always seems to lead to breaking those three criteria.
I'm even fine with rules that don't distinguish between them at all (Dungeon World?), although it is fun if the choices lead to playstyle differences.
In The One Ring, which for a long time had no "dual wield" option, I know some tables used the house rule that dual wielding was equivalent to using a 2H weapon: same encumbrance (2 weapons instead of one big one), same damage, same defense. It seemed to work just fine.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Except you won't have a better chance to hit with two separate attack rolls. You may have a better to hit with one of the two, but you actually have a decreased chance to hit with both than packing everything into one roll.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Why shouldn't other styles get the same things? What does that add to the game to restrict it to one style?
Now, I could see it if each style had strengths/weaknesses, so that, for example, you were better at parrying and protecting with a shield but did less damage, and better at feigning and distracting with dual wield and did moderate damage, and maybe just do more damage with a 2H, or something like that.
(Looking forward to hearing hysterical tirades about my lack of realism with those specific choices.)
doctorhook
Legend
Hmm good point. I stand corrected!
ART!
Deluxe Unhuman
Good point. It begs the question: what are the advantages of wielding two weapons, as opposed to wielding one hand having a free hand, wielding one weapon two-handed, or one weapon and a shield? I'd love to see a system that handles the differences with a light touch.
