D&D 1E AD&D two weapon fighting

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh, now, those gauntlets are a boon. But, probably not to fighters. I've found they've become more of a cleric or rogue thing. Classes that probably don't have terribly high strengths.

Thief. I'm quite sure you mean ... thief.

 

[Mannahnin]

Thief. I'm quite sure you mean ... thief.

Not in 5E he doesn't.

 

[Voadam]

I know that you just quotes most of the primary sources I used in the other post, but saying that the "attack routines" on p. 63 of the DMG does not refer to an attack with multiple weapons ... is an interesting reading.

Well since I had not been thinking to look under the DMG initiative section for relevant two-weapon attack information it was not a reading at all.

You quoted me discussing the PH page 25 chart saying see the combat section and the PH combat section had nothing more that was relevant for two weapon fighting.

When one or more creatures involved in combat are permitted to use their attack routines twice or more often during the round, then the following initiative determinants are employed. When the attack routine may be used twice, then allow the side with this advantage to attack FIRST and LAST with those members of its group who have this advantage. If it is possessed by both parties, the initiative roll determines which group strikes FIRST and THIRD, which group strikes SECOND and LAST. If one or both groups have members allowed only one attack routine, it will always fall in the middle of the other attacks, the order determined by dicing for initiative, when necessary. If one party has the ability to employ its attack routines thrice, then the other party dices for initiative to see if it, or the multi-routine group, strikes first in the mid-point of the round. Extrapolate for routines which occur four or more times in a round by following the method above. Note that a routine is the attack or attacks usual to the creature concerned, i.e. a weapon (or weapons) for a character, a claw/claw/bite routine for a bear (with incidental; damage assessed as it occurs - the hug, for exomple). A 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round, for example, and this moves up to three per round if a haste spell is cast upon the fighter. Damage from successful attacks is assessed when the "to hit" score is made and damage determined, the creature so taking damage having to survive it in order to follow its attack routine.

The combo of the "attack routines" including weapons plural for a character combined with the 12th level fighter gets 3/2 "attack routines" specific statement, seems to me to be an unambiguous reference to fighter attacks with both weapons for each of the attacks per melee round chart from page 25 of the PH (which does not call them attack routines).

I can imagine some people missing this one unambiguous reference though and reasonably interpreting things the other way.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can imagine some people missing this one unambiguous reference though and reasonably interpreting things the other way.

What? Are you saying that it was possible for someone to miss the explicit, clear, and easy-to-understand rules as laid out in the 1e DMG?

Next thing you know, you'll be goin' on about how it was difficult to work the whole surprise/initiative/weapon speed/segment system ... when combined with the grappling rules.

 

[Voadam]

I thought I had things pretty much down with the eight 1e rules sections I thought most likely relevant to look in.

All that's left is for someone else to possibly find a contradictory unambiguous reference in an obscure corner of the PH or DMG to tangle things up again.

 

[ECMO3]

What? Are you saying that it was possible for someone to miss the explicit, clear, and easy-to-understand rules as laid out in the 1e DMG?

Next thing you know, you'll be goin' on about how it was difficult to work the whole surprise/initiative/weapon speed/segment system ... when combined with the grappling rules.

1E was full of contradictions. The DM really had to make it up as you go.

My favorite was the Bard - The bard could be a half-elf or a human. To be a bard you first had to dual class in fighter and Thief, then you could take your third class in Bard ..... but half-elves were not allowed to dual class ..... so they could be Bards, but they could not earn the class prerequisites to be a Bard!

 

[the Jester]

Take a dual weilding fighter with 2 attacks per rounds. Now dual weilding will bring him to four. But if you fighter is 5/2 it becomes with dual weilding 8 attacks one round, 10 the other round. With a 3/round, it becomes 12 attacks per rounds.

I'm not sure how you get most of these numbers. With 5/2 attacks dual wielding, you get 6 attacks half the time and 4 the rest. With 3 attacks dual wielding, you get 6 per round. Unless I am missing something...?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

1E was full of contradictions. The DM really had to make it up as you go.

My favorite was the Bard - The bard could be a half-elf or a human. To be a bard you first had to dual class in fighter and Thief, then you could take your third class in Bard ..... but half-elves were not allowed to dual class ..... so they could be Bards, but they could not earn the class prerequisites to be a Bard!

Ugh, that one. That's right up there with elves can't be resurrected, except with a rod ... except less understandable.

Why are there percentiles to lift a gate, but d6 (or sometimes d20) to bust a lock? Why did you stop gaining hit points (and the con bonus) at a certain level- and why that particular level? Why do fighters and paladins keep getting 3hp, but rangers (the TOUGH ones) only get 2?

Psionics? Psionics!

 

[Nikosandros]

I certainly won't dispute that 1e has a mess of contradictory and murky rules (I still love it though!), but I don't see the bard rule as a contradiction. A bard has a special progression, which is similar to dual class, but is not the same.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I certainly won't dispute that 1e has a mess of contradictory and murky rules (I still love it though!), but I don't see the bard rule as a contradiction. A bard has a special progression, which is similar to dual class, but is not the same.

But is it? Or is this an example of an accident ... something thrown in?

A bard must be human or half-elven. ...Bards begin play as fighters, and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience. Anytime thereafter, and in any event prior to attaining the 8th level, they must change their class to that of thieves. Again, sometime between 5th and 9th level of ability, bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage. Bards must fulfill the requirements in all the above classes before progressing to Bards Table 1.
(PHB 117)

So what is described here is not multiclassing (which is what demi-humans, such as half-elves, do), but dual-classing- which is available only to humans. Notably, in the half-elf description, it doesn't even state that the optional Bard is a permitted class (which is neither here nor there, as other races also do not mention, for example, that they aren't allowed to have psionics).

Pages 32-33 have the multi-class character combination along with the human-only character with two classes. This is the only way to "remain exclusively {a} fighter" and then switch to thief.

Which brings three different possibilities that come to my mind:

1. The bard exists as both a class and a "pre-class," which is to say that a person isn't dual-classing, but instead goes through all the prerequisites of the bard class (fighter, thief) in a quantum state of pre-bardness. As such, the racial restriction on multi-classing and dual-classing do not apply, since the character is never a fighter or a thief, but only a pre-bard. This works great, unless something happens (like an item that changes alignment, or a reincarnation that changes the race, or the player realizing that BARDS ARE THE BANE OF ALL THE IS GOOD and abandoning the path of perfidy) that somehow converts the character from pre-bard to never-can-be-bard, thus necessitating an emergency ruling from the DM.

2. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the small minds that read AD&D, not the great mind that wrote it.

3. Bard are all bad, half-elves are half-bad, so it seemed a good fit?