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

[Helldritch]

Then again, as we all know ... Elves are soulless automatons. So quite honestly, I have no problem seeing them all hasted to death in service of something useful, like getting me some fries.

Ok. I bow to your logic. Can't argue with that.

 

[S'mon]

@Snarf Zagyg is 100% sure that double attacks is canonical. I OTOH always played as you suggest, that it was a straight single extra attack per round, and I insist this is not a 'backport' of the 2e rule, though it is literally impossible to prove that unequivocally at this point. I have some character sheets (a lot actually) but they are not really filled with rules references and such...

Suffice it to say that I agree that @Snarf Zagyg has a perfectly valid and probably most commonly used interpretation, and that Roger Moore may have agreed (I'm not sure that his article really resolves this, but I haven't read it in like 20 years). I think it would be worthless to debate it further, AD&D is a game with very murky rules, many of which have been interpreted in multiple ways over the years. Who is to say that one interpretation is 'right' or another one 'wrong'? Gary himself could at best tell us his intent, but he's not here, so...

It's always amazing the stuff Gygax thought 'goes without saying'! Compared to the lack of an official character generation method anywhere in AD&D (just some 'alternatives') the lack of any official definition of how many extra attacks, if any, you get from TWF seems quite a small lacuna. I know my groups assumed the DMG said +1 attack, from long before 2e came out (in fact we never really converted over, just used some 2e stuff in our 1e campaign), so Snarf is wrong to think this is a 'back-port', but yes there seems no way from the RAW to divine a single RAI. One possibility might be if any high level Fighter NPCs using TWF appeared in official adventures with attacks listed as eg "3/2+1"or "3" - I just had a look at the drow F7s in D3 and of course no indication either way. :/ The D3 default Drow stat block says "Attacks: 1 or 2" which makes clear that TWF gives at least 1 extra attack, but not whether it doubles extra attacks.

(I apologise for the thread derail, I had no idea this was a hotly contested topic! I guess I'm happy that 5e at least is clear on the issue!)

 

[Jack Daniel]

My reading of the 1e DMG (sans 2e) was that TWF with dagger or hand axe gave +1 attack, but I'm not too surprised to learn it doesn't actually say how many extra attacks you get, if any. BTW in Classic by default the answer is 0, AIR says so in Dawn of the Emperors.

In the Masters Set (which does predate 2e) and the Rules Cyclopedia, attacking with a second weapon gives you one extra attack at −4 to hit (with no penalty to the primary attack) and, if weapon mastery is used, −1 level of weapon mastery on the secondary weapon. (And, yes, Dawn of Emperors did contradict this.)

 

[Rabulias]

I played AD&D 1e with a couple of groups from 1982 to 1989, and we always treated a second weapon as granting a single additional attack. Very surprised that the rule is not really clearly expressed. We were usually very conservative about rule additions and power creep, so I guess we just assumed that was what the rule intended.

 

[RealAlHazred]

I dug out and reread the section in the AD&D 1E DMG.

Attacks With Two Weapons:

Characters normally using a single weapon may choose to use one in each hand (possibly discarding the option of using a shield). The second weapon must be either a dagger or hand axe. 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. If the user’s dexterity is below 6, the reaction/attacking Adjustment penalties shown in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK are added to EACH weapon attack. If the user’s dexterity is above 15, there is a downward adjustment in the weapon penalties as shown, although this never gives a positive (bonus) rating to such attacks, so that at 16 dexterity the secondary/primary penalty is -3/-1, at 17 -2/0, and at 18 -1/0.

The secondary weapon does not act as a shield or parrying device in any event.

What I immediately noticed is, it doesn't say anything about getting any extra attacks. It's only talking about having two weapons available to attack with -- if you had a frost brand and a flametongue, you could (using this rule) dual wield them and make any of your attacks with one or the other, and the penalties would apply as specified. I think my groups always played it with the expanded rules provided by Mr. Moore in Dragon magazine. Huh, we played it wrong for years...

Sorry for being late to the party, but my mind is blown.

 

[Alzrius]

if you had a frost brand and a flametongue, you could (using this rule) dual wield them and make any of your attacks with one or the other

Weren't those both necessarily swords? The section you quoted said the second weapon has to be a hand axe or a dagger.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's always amazing the stuff Gygax thought 'goes without saying'! Compared to the lack of an official character generation method anywhere in AD&D (just some 'alternatives') the lack of any official definition of how many extra attacks, if any, you get from TWF seems quite a small lacuna. I know my groups assumed the DMG said +1 attack, from long before 2e came out (in fact we never really converted over, just used some 2e stuff in our 1e campaign), so Snarf is wrong to think this is a 'back-port', but yes there seems no way from the RAW to divine a single RAI.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is being disingenuous, or lying, or even doing the typical internet, "If someone says something, Ima gonna be against it, 'cuz that's how it works ... no retreat, no surrender, no apologies!"

What I do think happens is, for a lot of people, there is a OD&D/1e/2e "Mandela effect," and that this is strongest with the late 1e/2e period. And it totally makes sense.

Think about it- the majority of people commenting about "AD&D" are doing so having never played 1e (just 2e) or having played just a little 1e before playing 2e - this makes sense just by looking at the grim math of an actuarial table.

Even those olds of us who haven't died yet who started with OD&D and early 1e ... well, most of us here ... 1e ended in 1988. Arguably, the "classic" rules ended in 1985, when you have the UA split. Which means that people discussing 1e rules today are trying to remember what the rules were like, usually having not played it for more 30 years, and often having spent more time playing a very close variant (2e) and/or playing computer games based on 2e ... and that's before remembering that 1e had some famously opaque rules.

I tend to have less of that particular problem only because I never played 2e rules- so they stick out a little more to me; even so, my memory is such that I still have to go back and verify things against the text because sometimes my memory tells me I did things that just didn't happen. That's why I try to always source my points.

Our minds are funny like that.

 

[S'mon]

I tend to have less of that particular problem only because I never played 2e rules

AIR I bought the 2e MM & PHB, used the MM for the increased XPVs and the bigger dragons & giants. Used the 2e Bard class; I think I might have used 2e style d10s for initiative. Otherwise stayed with 1e AD&D, but did less and less gaming after leaving high school in 1991 until 3e came out in 2000. Most of the discussion of 2e feels pretty alien to me.

OTOH the man in the shop who sold me 1e AD&D also persuaded young S'mon that newly released Unearthed Arcana was an Important Core & Integral part of the game... so my default vision of AD&D is overpowered munchkin PCs - TWF high elf Cavaliers @Upper_Krust - cleaving through hundreds of foes even in my 'killer' campaign. The Fantasy Effin Vietnam Experience is pretty alien to me, too.