D&D 1E AD&D two weapon fighting

[Snarf Zagyg]

Posted.

D&D General - Attacks With Two Weapons, Game Design, And the Evolution of D&D

A topic that has come up now repeatedly (first arising in the context of my posts regarding Drizzt and Rangers) is the idea of Dual Wielding, aka Two Weapon Fighting, aka Attacks with Two Weapons. I think that it's worth developing into a separate post given that the topic is more general than...

www.enworld.org

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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. Give that to a fighter with gauntlets of ogre power and +3 weapons.... you get a walking blender. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume short swords... 4pts average + 6 damage, +3 from the weapon and +3 from specialization we get 16 damage on average per attacks, or 192 damage per round. At this level of damage, some demon lords will not last three whole rounds against that fighter. All he needs is a potion of haste, which in 1ed isn't that hard to get...

I addressed that in the new post; this is the problem with "reading back" into the rule.

The rule made perfect sense in 1979 when it was published. It was only with UA (and Weapon Specialization) that it became a problem, and that's why it was changed in 2e, which officially adopted specialization.

Under the default assumptions in 1e, you didn't have specialization, you never had 5/2 or 3/1, and you didn't even get to 2/1 until you were past name level.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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. Give that to a fighter with gauntlets of ogre power and +3 weapons.... you get a walking blender. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume short swords... 4pts average + 6 damage, +3 from the weapon and +3 from specialization we get 16 damage on average per attacks, or 192 damage per round. At this level of damage, some demon lords will not last three whole rounds against that fighter. All he needs is a potion of haste, which in 1ed isn't that hard to get...

I posted some thoughts on optimization and TWF in core 1e on the other thread. IMHO it was a pretty viable strategy. Not stupid overwhelming in potency, but a solid option, even though we did play with a "adds one attack per round" interpretation even back in 1e days (IMHO Zeb, needing a way to nerf TWF in 2e simply canonicalized that interpretation as the 2e official rule).

Depending on your race, exactly how many good ability scores you had, and the composition of the rest of your party, you might want to go with TWF and make DEX your highest stat. This becomes even more attractive if you were blessed with something like an 18 and a 16 or 17, so that STR could also contribute to both your attacks. DEX increases your AC, many saves, and your initiative, and also attack bonus with missile weapons. That AC bonus also applies to all attacks that you can see coming, not only ones from a certain angle or a limited number of them, so it is BETTER than a shield.

Admittedly, the secondary attack is at -1 with an 18 DEX and it is with a d6 weapon that does crappy damage to large creatures and has less magical options. If TWF was the only thing that DEX helped, it would be worthless, but it is part of the whole 'package', and since archers have less use for shields, the whole thing has multiple synergies. A TWF DEX build fighter with a longbow and 2 melee weapons is thus a rather good build. Toss on ELF and you instantly understand why elf fighter is so level-limited, you get an additional DEX bonus (potential 19 DEX!!!!) and a +1 with your 2 main weapons, plus lots of other useful goodies. Yeah, you will get borked at higher levels, OTOH you can MC magic-user and be a real bad-ass ALL THE TIME.

So, at the very least, an Elven Fighter/Magic-User DEX build with TWF is a great idea, though admittedly it is likely you will have to go with a mediocre INT, unless you rolled a god character.

 

[Helldritch]

I posted some thoughts on optimization and TWF in core 1e on the other thread. IMHO it was a pretty viable strategy. Not stupid overwhelming in potency, but a solid option, even though we did play with a "adds one attack per round" interpretation even back in 1e days (IMHO Zeb, needing a way to nerf TWF in 2e simply canonicalized that interpretation as the 2e official rule).

Depending on your race, exactly how many good ability scores you had, and the composition of the rest of your party, you might want to go with TWF and make DEX your highest stat. This becomes even more attractive if you were blessed with something like an 18 and a 16 or 17, so that STR could also contribute to both your attacks. DEX increases your AC, many saves, and your initiative, and also attack bonus with missile weapons. That AC bonus also applies to all attacks that you can see coming, not only ones from a certain angle or a limited number of them, so it is BETTER than a shield.

Admittedly, the secondary attack is at -1 with an 18 DEX and it is with a d6 weapon that does crappy damage to large creatures and has less magical options. If TWF was the only thing that DEX helped, it would be worthless, but it is part of the whole 'package', and since archers have less use for shields, the whole thing has multiple synergies. A TWF DEX build fighter with a longbow and 2 melee weapons is thus a rather good build. Toss on ELF and you instantly understand why elf fighter is so level-limited, you get an additional DEX bonus (potential 19 DEX!!!!) and a +1 with your 2 main weapons, plus lots of other useful goodies. Yeah, you will get borked at higher levels, OTOH you can MC magic-user and be a real bad-ass ALL THE TIME.

So, at the very least, an Elven Fighter/Magic-User DEX build with TWF is a great idea, though admittedly it is likely you will have to go with a mediocre INT, unless you rolled a god character.

From what I read, I interpreted and implemented the rule exactly like you did. And came to the same character builds too.

 

[Mannahnin]

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. Give that to a fighter with gauntlets of ogre power and +3 weapons.... you get a walking blender. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume short swords... 4pts average + 6 damage, +3 from the weapon and +3 from specialization we get 16 damage on average per attacks, or 192 damage per round. At this level of damage, some demon lords will not last three whole rounds against that fighter. All he needs is a potion of haste, which in 1ed isn't that hard to get...

Why are you assuming short swords? The only legal off-hand weapon options under the rules we're talking about are hand axe or dagger. It's only with optional rules like the Moore article (or Drow PCs if UA is allowed, once that comes out) that expand the options.

And yes, of course it's a ton of attacks. But those attacks are all with substantial to-hit penalties unless the character's Dexterity is quite high. Which it rarely would be in 1E, unless you're using some extraordinarily generous ability score generation system. As Snarf has pointed out, Strength is the higher-priority ability scores for a Fighter class in 1E by a mile, and TWF doesn't really let Dex outweigh its benefits, though it adds some more value to Dex.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I posted some thoughts on optimization and TWF in core 1e on the other thread. IMHO it was a pretty viable strategy. Not stupid overwhelming in potency, but a solid option, even though we did play with a "adds one attack per round" interpretation even back in 1e days (IMHO Zeb, needing a way to nerf TWF in 2e simply canonicalized that interpretation as the 2e official rule).

Depending on your race, exactly how many good ability scores you had, and the composition of the rest of your party, you might want to go with TWF and make DEX your highest stat. This becomes even more attractive if you were blessed with something like an 18 and a 16 or 17, so that STR could also contribute to both your attacks. DEX increases your AC, many saves, and your initiative, and also attack bonus with missile weapons. That AC bonus also applies to all attacks that you can see coming, not only ones from a certain angle or a limited number of them, so it is BETTER than a shield.

Admittedly, the secondary attack is at -1 with an 18 DEX and it is with a d6 weapon that does crappy damage to large creatures and has less magical options. If TWF was the only thing that DEX helped, it would be worthless, but it is part of the whole 'package', and since archers have less use for shields, the whole thing has multiple synergies. A TWF DEX build fighter with a longbow and 2 melee weapons is thus a rather good build. Toss on ELF and you instantly understand why elf fighter is so level-limited, you get an additional DEX bonus (potential 19 DEX!!!!) and a +1 with your 2 main weapons, plus lots of other useful goodies. Yeah, you will get borked at higher levels, OTOH you can MC magic-user and be a real bad-ass ALL THE TIME.

So, at the very least, an Elven Fighter/Magic-User DEX build with TWF is a great idea, though admittedly it is likely you will have to go with a mediocre INT, unless you rolled a god character.

Yes, but no. Looking at the examples you use just doesn't make sense.

Take your killer elf fighter. Since he didn't max his strength, instead going for Dexterity, he is limited to 5th level. That means that your dual-wielder never even gets to have multiple attack routines.

And although his "to hit" won't be that bad, his lack of strength means very little damage. But wait- he's a fighter/MU! Again, we have a terrible Fighter (max 5) and a mediocre MU (max 9) since you made Dexterity your top stat.

And all that so that you could ... get a secondary attack with a hand axe or dagger. It's just not the smart play. Most of these "builds" just don't make any sense in the context of pre-UA 1e, and only limited sense even after UA.

EDIT- the main point is that unlike more recent editions, COUGH 5e COUGH FINESSE, you couldn't get damage bonuses with Dex. Ever. If you wanted the massive to hit ... AND DAMAGE bonuses in AD&D, you needed strength. And because so many other classes were actually dex-dependent (Thief, Assassin, Monk, Illusionist) it was likely that high-dex characters were not fighter, or, at most, were MC fighters that would never get to the level that would let them have multiple attack routines.

 

[Helldritch]

Why are you assuming short swords? The only legal off-hand weapon options under the rules we're talking about are hand axe or dagger. It's only with optional rules like the Moore article (or Drow PCs if UA is allowed, once that comes out) that expand the options.

And yes, of course it's a ton of attacks. But those attacks are all with substantial to-hit penalties unless the character's Dexterity is quite high. Which it rarely would be in 1E, unless you're using some extraordinarily generous ability score generation system. As Snarf has pointed out, Strength is the higher-priority ability scores for a Fighter class in 1E by a mile, and TWF doesn't really let Dex outweigh its benefits, though it adds some more value to Dex.

These were added in the article that Snarf was refering to. Trying to get common ground. Two hand axes would do exactly the same.

 

[Helldritch]

Yes, but no. Looking at the examples you use just doesn't make sense.

Take your killer elf fighter. Since he didn't max his strength, instead going for Dexterity, he is limited to 5th level. That means that your dual-wielder never even gets to have multiple attack routines.

And although his "to hit" won't be that bad, his lack of strength means very little damage. But wait- he's a fighter/MU! Again, we have a terrible Fighter (max 5) and a mediocre MU (max 9) since you made Dexterity your top stat.

And all that so that you could ... get a secondary attack with a hand axe or dagger. It's just not the smart play. Most of these "builds" just don't make any sense in the context of pre-UA 1e, and only limited sense even after UA.

EDIT- the main point is that unlike more recent editions, COUGH 5e COUGH FINESSE, you couldn't get damage bonuses with Dex. Ever. If you wanted the massive to hit ... AND DAMAGE bonuses in AD&D, you needed strength. And because so many other classes were actually dex-dependent (Thief, Assassin, Monk, Illusionist) it was likely that high-dex characters were not fighter, or, at most, were MC fighters that would never get to the level that would let them have multiple attack routines.

Use the gray elf. 18th level with a 19 intelligence. After that, it is only a matter of time to get to max strength with wishes. Thus raising it's max level as a fighter by a fair amount up to 9th? (I don't have my books and it shows...)

But usually, it would be the high level dual weilding fighter that would benefits the most.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Use the gray elf. 18th level with a 19 intelligence. After that, it is only a matter of time to get to max strength with wishes. Thus raising it's max level as a fighter by a fair amount up to 9th? (I don't have my books and it shows...)

But usually, it would be the high level dual weilding fighter that would benefits the most.

Again, 1e rules (pre-UA). The elf doesn't make it to 18th level. Ever. 11th level cap. Even if they raise their natural strength to 18 with wishes (can't be magic items like gauntlets), they have a 7th level cap of fighter.

Now, let's say that you use the optional and OP rules in UA. First, wash out your eyes with bleach- you'll thank me later. Second, pick up all the pages from floor where they fall because the UA binding was the worst ever; seriously, why not just sell it as loose-leaf?

Still with me?

Your 19 intelligence MU Gray Elf was capped at level 12. 14 if single-classed. But then you can't be a fighter. Raising you strength to 18 gives you a 6 cap in fighter under UA- you'd need to get to at lest 18/75 or higher to get to even level 7.

The long and the short of it is that, pre-UA, TWF wasn't really an advantage. There were a few edge cases, and higher-level fighters (human) could certainly benefit. It was only with the advent of (optional) specialization in UA that certain synergies began to form.

 

[Alzrius]

Now, let's say that you use the optional and OP rules in UA. First, wash out your eyes with bleach- you'll thank me later. Second, pick up all the pages from floor where they fall because the UA binding was the worst ever; seriously, why not just sell it as loose-leaf?

Still with me?

Your 19 intelligence MU Gray Elf was capped at level 12. 14 if single-classed. But then you can't be a fighter. Raising you strength to 18 gives you a 6 cap in fighter under UA- you'd need to get to at lest 18/75 or higher to get to even level 7.

For general edification of the thread, here are the relevant sub-racial level limits for elves in UA.