Changes to Combat from my Experience

[SBMC]

Well, the two-weapon fighting bonus you suggest makes shields less valuable in defense than a secondary weapon. I don't like that. The penalties you take for 2WF are balanced by the extra attacks you get- you're basically setting 2wf up to be better than weapon and shield. Also, you add a whole new layer of complexity to the game by saying that 'sometimes you get this bonus, and sometimes you don't.' It's often tough enough to calculate your final attack bonus and AC, especially in high-level play- I don't think the increase in complexity (though slight) pays for itself with increased realism.

In fact, I think you're trying to inject too much realism into the game. After all, we all know that a direct hit by greatsword is going to kill any normal man, or at least leave you incapacitated, but if you're a 3rd-level fighter in dnd it won't. Give up anything deeper than a blase facade of realism when you're playing dnd and you may find that you're happier with the way the game runs.

If you do elect to make changes like this to your game, I recommend that you very carefully look at balance issues- you're basically telling people not to bother with shields with your two-weapon change, for instance, and giving two-handed blades bludgeoning damage defeats one of the few weaknesses of the two-handed blades (DR x/bludgeoning).

Maybe you wouldn't be bothered by the changes to game balance caused by these changes, but I would. Third edition is very well-balanced, and improving some weapons throws that balance off. In your initial post you imply that rebalancing the game is easy; I would disagree, but YMMV.

I agree with great enthusiasm.

TWF:
In addition the assumption is that if you have the TWF feat you automaticaly are an expert at it. This also nulifies the additional TWF feats out there. The reality is that in history VERY FEW every fought with two weapons or one reason - it is INCREDIBLY difficult. Perhaps not to a Master of Martial Arts - but a 1st level character with the TWF feat is certainly not a "Master". This level of mastery required has been documented and seen in practice in virtualy every martial arts dicipline in the world - including the far east.

I would suggest - To get the same result you are looking for - add Homemade feats:

Example (these may already exist someplace in one form or another):
Two Weapon Blocking:
Prereq: TWF, TWD, There should be at least on more - what ???
You may use your offhand attack (provided you have not already used it during the round) to attempt to block an attack by a melee weapon that has hit you. Make an attack role; if it beats the attack roll your opponent made to hit you the attack is blocked (and one of your offhand attacks has been used up). If the opponant made a critical hit and it is confirmed via the second dice roll it cannot be blocked in this manner.
Extra Note: Perhaps also allow an improved version that lets them burn AoO's in the same way - with a limit per round.

IMO In this way it "costs" the character something (a core cocept of all gaming mechanics), it does not allow a newbie PC to get a massive booster to AC, it does not make the sheild obsolete and it does not allow the character to "double up" on one feat (defense and offense with TWF in this case).

Feats exist for this purpose and why there are so darn many of them; to allow characters to do amazing things. However your ideas are "freebies" that add to existing feats with no cost at all to the character - in your game world everyone who swings a sword would be stupid not to swing two of them seeing as a get a +2 right of the bat to AC plus the TWD feats...plus the Dex Bonuses that come with the high Dex required to get TWF feats...

 

[Mageslayer]

Thanks for everyone's continued interest.

As somewhat of a martial artist myself (more based on unarmed combat, admittingly), I feel two weapons don't always add to your 'defence.' If you intend to attack with both, you usually have to time yourself well. If you don't, your other sword will just be in the way and you won't get any good strikes in. But if you time yourself so, it's quite often hard to whip up either sword in your defence without disrupting your timing.

You can always anticipate having to use one as just a defensive tool, but that's no better off then a shield (IMO it's usually worse and tires you quicker).

In my art, two weapon fighting is learned in conjunction with single weapon fighting. They are of a piece. It is not actually very hard, and it is easier than a shield, because shields are heavier and less manueverable. The second weapon isn't a defensive tool. It is integral to the art of killing quickly and decisively. You never really see the dagger until it is between your ribs, or slicing through your wrist.

Of all the 2WF historical fighting style that I know of, western or eastern, the second weapon is 90% of the time used as a substitute for a buckler. Always for defense. Once in a while you may get a chance to strike in for a kill, but first and foremost it is a defensive tool. I can think of rapier/dagger, longsword/dagger, katana/wakizashi at least.

If you know what your a doing, killing someone who only has one weapon becomes much easier, as does preventing yourself from being killed, than if you only had one weapon. As for the wakazashi, the author of the Book of Five Rings seems to agree with me on this.

But again, many of you are missing the point. The point isn't to debate realism. Nor is the point to inject realism into a game that can't be real. The point is to add continual variety to the game, continual value and consequence to choices made, even choices in equipment. Some of us like that idea. Others do not.

As for whether it should be a feat, I've already conceded the point that that would be a good idea. I just hadn't considered it before my first post. I like the idea of making it a progression, like you get with Point Blank Shot and the other feats that require it as a prerequisite. That would be good.

In fact, designing a martial style based on feats seems to be partly the point of feats, at least where the fighter is concerned. That can lead to all kinds of things.

 

[SBMC]

Historical inaccuracies and assumptions

Thanks for everyone's continued interest.

In my art, two weapon fighting is learned in conjunction with single weapon fighting. They are of a piece. It is not actually very hard, and it is easier than a shield, because shields are heavier and less manueverable. The second weapon isn't a defensive tool. It is integral to the art of killing quickly and decisively. You never really see the dagger until it is between your ribs, or slicing through your wrist.

Won’t see it coming…what if the opponent is as skilled as you are? Would it then be so easy and decisive? You mentioned Kali and Jeet Kune Do as your specialties; Jeet Kune Do (for those of you who do not know this is Bruce Lee’s Style he created) was designed in an era without armor and Kali is from a culture with virtually no armor.

There is a distinctive difference in how cultures make war dependant upon the tools at hand. Without armor speed and agility are what is important. A single cut can end a combat quickly; and that cut need not have a great deal of pressure applied when made. However when one needs speed and agility they also need space to move; mass combat takes on a brand new look; and without it…things get messy for everyone.

Most advanced cultures (not all) (Japan, China, Europe) all used armor for obvious reasons – and shields.

Thus: TWF takes EXCEPTIONAL speed and agility to execute effectively – hence the very high DEX scores required in the DnD rules. Read on for more evidence…

If you know what your a doing, killing someone who only has one weapon becomes much easier, as does preventing yourself from being killed, than if you only had one weapon. As for the wakazashi, the author of the Book of Five Rings seems to agree with me on this.

And what if the other guy knows what he’s doing to?

Miyamoto Musashi's “Ichi Ryu Ni” style is what you are referring to; written in the 1600’s. It went through several name changes before his death in 1645. There is a whole lot of world history prior to 1645; a whole lot. Many also think that this guy laid some sort of major foundation for combat in Japan – he did not. His works were unique and survived the times is all. As a matter of fact this man was a Ronin!

This is where historical fact differs greatly from your theories as well as modern martial arts teachings in America (which are ripe with inaccuracies). This writing and another by the same author is frequently used as a backup for insinuating that TWF is superior to shield use and two-handed weapons - it is not. That is proven directly and by comparison of masters time and time again in history; old and new. Go to the ARMA website and start reading some essays on swordsmanship and tactics – you will find the opposite of what you have just said is true. A skilled one weapon user has greater control over his weapon as well as a reach, balance and power advantage - you still assume the opponent is weaker than you.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I chose to find some places that everyone could access to validate what I am saying:

Related Links:
http://www.samurai.com/5rings/
http://www.nitenichi.com/
http://www.geocities.com/georgemccall/ken.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

As a backup for the use of some warriors in Japan wearing two swords:
http://www.samurai.com/5rings/ground/27.html

Two swords

The samurai wore two swords thrust thru the belt with the cutting edges upward on the left side. The shorter, or companion, sword was carried at all times, and the longer sword was only worn out of doors. From time to time there were rules governing the style and length of swords. Samurai carried two swords but other classes were allowed only one sword for protection against brigands on the roads between towns (see Translator's Introduction). The samurai kept their short swords at their bedsides, and there were racks for long swords inside the vestibule of every samurai home.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Anyone feel free to look this up elsewhere; you will find that the samurai were the only ones to wear two swords and that they actually DID NOT use TWF as a practice. Why? Because in actual practice so few can effectively do it not to mention that the use of armor requires a greater use of force in blows amongst other things (some noted elsewhere above).

Now: the samurai were not exactly your average fighter; they were the elite of the elite like the knights of Europe. They knew how to do battle as an art not a trade as soldiers might. Thus; that said; even if your statements hold true (which they do not) it points to the fact that the most elite of “warrior” (not the lack of the plural) used TWF not the more average or normal ones.

To note: Miyamoto Musashi was an extremely advanced warrior; the best of the best at a very young age. He was the master of TWF - excessively skilled, agile and gifted.

“Musashi fought in the 3 major campaigns of his time and it is recorded that he fought over 60 duels in his lifetime – and lived.”

Thus it is clear that this guy was ELITE, VERY ELITE. Also note that it took him many years to create this style of his and perfect it. However after his death in 1645 not one of his pupils (some having been with him for many years) had the ability to fully understand and execute his style and, even with his two publications, could not do so after several years of study - Niten Ichi-Ryu died out after that. Thus this again points to the need fro a very special person to master this.

DnD in the CW book misrepresents TWF with the Samurai and Ronin classes – they also use this guys book as a basis for that – historically inaccurate.

With that – your support and theory of historical superiority of TWF is not validated – the opposite is true. Musashi was not a major player in the shaping of tactics for his nation at all; as said; the guy was actually a Ronin; an outcast and a mercenary. This is not to mention there are just a few years of prior Japanese warrior and Samurai fighting history prior to his birth that did not utilize his methods.

But again, many of you are missing the point. The point isn't to debate realism. Nor is the point to inject realism into a game that can't be real. The point is to add continual variety to the game, continual value and consequence to choices made, even choices in equipment. Some of us like that idea. Others do not.

The point is actually that you are planning on adding in a component that unbalances the game greatly. Giving AC bonuses to TWF Fighters eliminates the need of a shield and points to anyone who wants to survive needs to got he TWF route. All of the attributes, bonuses, feats, feats allowed to take, etc all balance out. With one rule to strip out half of the TWF feats as being redundant and make TWF the thing to be; period. Like saying a two weapon wielding character gets to add x5 his strength bonus to damage roles; why the heck would anyone want to use a shield? Even if they did for concept reasons after the first combat, when they get smacked around by a dozen two-handed weapon using bad guys, they’ll switch.

 

[Roetroc]

Right, whilst not an expert I have been using steel swords, axes, spears etc for the last 7 years and have experience in both unarmed and armed Japanese martial arts and limited experience with some other EMA.

I have fought and trained with two weapons and with single weapons and single weapon with shield.

When fighting one-on-one, these combinations have their advantages and their disadvantages.

Eg a single-handed weapon can be extremly good against a two handed piercing weapon like a spear as they can be used to drive a person onto the back foot and then grasp the shaft. Against a two-handed that has a slashing option halberd, poleaxe it is less effective as grasping the shaft now becomes much more difficult.

The crux however is that a shield of any significant size really negates the benefit of having a second weapon particularly when it is small (like a dagger). Against a buckler you can prevail as you only have a small area to overcome, but it is highly mobile. Against a small shield (as long as it is bound to the arm like a heater) whilst a larger area is now covered it is not as mobile. A small shield with a centre grip is a complete pain to get around, expecially as with your small weapon you remain in range of a sword or spear longer. With a large shield (like a Viking shield), it is rare that you will prevail and it's usually against the inexperienced, unless one of your weapons is an axe and you are hooking.

An experienced shield user does need to move their shield much (with a big shield), can use to to batter away your primary weapon when you attack and bind your weapon when they attack. They can remain static and defensive by simple holding out their arm (which effectively increases the size of their shield) and also use to to hide where their attack is coming from.

That said, that's one-on-one. In massed combats or even two on two. Two weapons are a big sign that says, "Hit me. I'm easy to kill". Any TWF in a shield wall are usually dead within seconds and is usually done by those who wish to go out in a glorious death. A person with a spear in two hands can pick off a TWF in a shield wall in seconds as you can't watch everyone at once and TWF are the obvious gaps in the wall.

Even fighting two-on-two you are the weak point and will be targeted as the first victim.

This is just in my experience where we fight a lot in small skirmishing groups, shield walls and one on one.

 

[Mageslayer]

The point is actually that you are planning on adding in a component that unbalances the game greatly. Giving AC bonuses to TWF Fighters eliminates the need of a shield and points to anyone who wants to survive needs to got he TWF route. All of the attributes, bonuses, feats, feats allowed to take, etc all balance out. With one rule to strip out half of the TWF feats as being redundant and make TWF the thing to be; period. Like saying a two weapon wielding character gets to add x5 his strength bonus to damage roles; why the heck would anyone want to use a shield? Even if they did for concept reasons after the first combat, when they get smacked around by a dozen two-handed weapon using bad guys, they’ll switch.

I've got counters to many of your arguments (for instance, the value of Japanese armor in melee vs. ranged combat), but my intent wasn't to get into a debate about martial realities (although I foolishly baited such a debate). So I'll answer what I feel is the main point of the discussion, which is the above.

In my scheme, the advantage of two-weapon fighting is, unlike a shield, impermanent and illusive. You don't get the advantage all the time: not when you face ranged weapons, not when you face others who are using two weapons. There may be other situations I've not considered where it would make sense to negate the benefit. A shield is "always on." This is not true of the defensive value of a secondary weapon. Also, since I plan on incorporating this into feats, it will be a part of the feat selection process, in which case you might not get many of the benifits of this scheme until much later in your character's career. None of you have seen my feat progression in this respect. Hell, I might require that a fighter must buy the shield proficiency feat (a feat he normally doesn't need to acquire) in order to get this.

It may seem unbalanced, but I feel there is sufficient reason to playtest it before passing judgement on it. I don't really have an ideological attatchment to the AC/HP structure of the game. I only really care whether the game is fun and novel. If a person doesn't like that approach, they're libel not to like much of what I come up with...

 

[SBMC]

I've got counters to many of your arguments (for instance, the value of Japanese armor in melee vs. ranged combat), but my intent wasn't to get into a debate about martial realities (although I foolishly baited such a debate). So I'll answer what I feel is the main point of the discussion, which is the above.

In my scheme, the advantage of two-weapon fighting is, unlike a shield, impermanent and illusive. You don't get the advantage all the time: not when you face ranged weapons, not when you face others who are using two weapons. There may be other situations I've not considered where it would make sense to negate the benefit. A shield is "always on." This is not true of the defensive value of a secondary weapon. Also, since I plan on incorporating this into feats, it will be a part of the feat selection process, in which case you might not get many of the benifits of this scheme until much later in your character's career. None of you have seen my feat progression in this respect. Hell, I might require that a fighter must buy the shield proficiency feat (a feat he normally doesn't need to acquire) in order to get this.

It may seem unbalanced, but I feel there is sufficient reason to playtest it before passing judgement on it. I don't really have an ideological attatchment to the AC/HP structure of the game. I only really care whether the game is fun and novel. If a person doesn't like that approach, they're libel not to like much of what I come up with...
</FONT></FONT></FONT>

Feel free to counter my points - but the problem is that your counters will be opinion based and unsupported by historical fact or actual present day practivce and knowledge. But remember that there are tons of people out here that are very well versed in such things - just read the thread - many of them far more than I am.

The debute about such things always occurs when you put something out on a Bboard...that is the nature of the thing.

 

[Mageslayer]

"Historical fact"? I've been through this a million times on Defend.net. The Moros (southern Filipinos) Thais, and Burmese had armor (mostly piece and chain), and all used double weapon fighting techniques. They were taught from early childhood. And Japanese armor was primarily designed for defense against arrow barrages, not swords -- that's what swordsmanship was for. The Chinese practiced double weapon techniques and also had armor. Armor does not negate the value of double weapons, and apart from that their ability to defeat armor isn't the point. Their value in defense against attack is the issue here.

I've practiced often against shields, and I can get around them with two weapons. I am not unique in this. If I had trained like the Moros of old, it wouldn't be a question at all. It's all about context. In the FMA you pick up a weapon on the first day. This is not the case in most living arts. Field systems (systems designed for field combat) always incorporate weapons early, or even solely. European soldiers often used shields because, yes, they were effective, but also because they were cheaper than more elaborate armor. You didn't truly need a shield in the more advanced plate armor during dismounted melee combat -- if you could afford it. Getting around a shield is not hard -- it just means a lot of shorn tibias. It guards many sectors of the body easily, but can be turned against the user. Most weapons are like that.

But none of this answers my response in my last post. Why would you be so attached to the idea of preserving the shield anyway? Even if my rules had the effect that you envision on shield-users, who cares? It would just balance out in the end. Within a given context, you won't see other things as well. For instance, it would be ludicrous for a game based in the Ancient Orient to contain full plate mail, heavy lances, and bastard swords. You can change the context to match that, but only if you aren't planning on being historicaly accurate. Maybe you aren't. And maybe it doesn't matter whether people use shields or not. But I submit that shields would still have a place either way.

What I'm trying to say is that I need ideas on how to improve this. It's in early stages, and people telling me it can't work or it will somehow destroy the game doesn't help me. If you want to keep shields, help me balance the idea with shields, not shoot it down. For instance, I never said the bonuses were set in stone. It could be just a +1, rather than a +4, in which case even given everthing else, shields would still have basic value.

 

[SBMC]

"Historical fact"? I've been through this a million times on Defend.net. The Moros (southern Filipinos) Thais, and Burmese had armor (mostly piece and chain), and all used double weapon fighting techniques. They were taught from early childhood."

Defend.net hmmm - did you use the same arguments and did anyone pick up some historybooks?

Your statements are true - but exactly what here points to TWF being superior to other forms of fighting?

And Japanese armor was primarily designed for defense against arrow barrages, not swords -- that's what swordsmanship was for.

Really? Are you sure about that? The draw has nothing to do with it then?

The Chinese practiced double weapon techniques and also had armor.

Really? And exactly to what extent did two weapon fighting incorporate itself into the general martial arts of China? And I am not talking about the monks who trained from 3 years old; the common soldiers and the like.

Armor does not negate the value of double weapons, and apart from that their ability to defeat armor isn't the point. Their value in defense against attack is the issue here.

Wrong - armor is the point. With Armor strikes must be either more powerful or placed with great skill and precision. Someone wearing armor can expose areas to be attacked whilst defending others and attacking. If a TWF fighter wears armor; his mobility is reduced - if he wields a weapon in one hand (especially the offhand) his power is reduced.

With a single weapon in hand there is less power; period. In addition a weapon used in defense is less able to be used in defense as a shield is.

Your points argue that in reality a two weapon fighter can out due a fighter with a sword and shield. You also argue here that the weapons used were comparable; long sword and dagger for example NOT two daggers or the equivalent of short swords.

I've practiced often against shields, and I can get around them with two weapons. I am not unique in this.

Really? And exactly who are you sparring with? Did the opponent also have armor? The wound you would have made - disabling or lethal? Or did you just get around the shield to make a light poke at the chest (that would have a breast plate there normally)? I would love to see you in an SCA tournament.

If I had trained like the Moros of old, it wouldn't be a question at all. It's all about context. In the FMA you pick up a weapon on the first day. This is not the case in most living arts. Field systems (systems designed for field combat) always incorporate weapons early, or even solely.

So you are saying that every Filipino warrior that was produced was an expert TWF that could overcome anyone with a shield or any another type of weapon/defense system? Or is this like the Five Rings example where you pull out the exception instead of the rule? Are you saying that that is all that they trained with? Did they not also train with swords wielded in two hands? Are you saying that the value of power in strikes is not mentioned in kali?

And, also bringing in the above - are you saying all Filipino warriors wore armor? During all time periods?

And again and as mentioned in a previous post; the culture went towards TWF as one method of training that was wide spread - for one reason or another - that does not mean that it was more effective than others. If it was then the rest of the world would have adopted in wholeheartedly - the did not.

European soldiers often used shields because, yes, they were effective, but also because they were cheaper than more elaborate armor. You didn't truly need a shield in the more advanced plate armor during dismounted melee combat-- if you could afford it.

It was also because making plate armor was not perfected until much later in human history (I forget the actual dates - so I won't quote them at the moment) and that plate armor was great in certain situations; such as fighting another guy with plate or on horseback. Shields are also very effective on a battlefield where the enemy can come from anywhere; fighting one on one is another story altogether.

Yes - the shield became redundant when full plate came out - for those that wore full plate that is. But that is common knowledge.

Getting around a shield is not hard -- it just means a lot of shorn tibias. It guards many sectors of the body easily, but can be turned against the user. Most weapons are like that.

Again you say it again - really? Read above. If that were so then why does the majority of the world not partake in TWF?

But none of this answers my response in my last post. Why would you be so attached to the idea of preserving the shield anyway? Even if my rules had the effect that you envision on shield-users, who cares? It would just balance out in the end. Within a given context, you won't see other things as well. For instance, it would be ludicrous for a game based in the Ancient Orient to contain full plate mail, heavy lances, and bastard swords. You can change the context to match that, but only if you aren't planning on being historicaly accurate. Maybe you aren't. And maybe it doesn't matter whether people use shields or not. But I submit that shields would still have a place either way.

First - if you wanted your question answered in a straight forward manner you picked the wrong place to post! This is a forum mind you where every thread can go anywhere and if a post you better have a thick skin..

The entire point is that they would not - yo are giving +2's and +3's to AC; if you make that hard to get that is one thing but as freebies…

What I'm trying to say is that I need ideas on how to improve this. It's in early stages, and people telling me it can't work or it will somehow destroy the game doesn't help me. If you want to keep shields, help me balance the idea with shields, not shoot it down. For instance, I never said the bonuses were set in stone. It could be just a +1, rather than a +4, in which case even given everything else, shields would still have basic value.

A feat as I had posted before:

Example (these may already exist someplace in one form or another):

Two Weapon Blocking:
Prereq: TWF, TWD, There should be at least on more - what ???
You may use your offhand attack (provided you have not already used it during the round) to attempt to block an attack by a melee weapon that has hit you. Make an attack role; if it beats the attack roll your opponent made to hit you the attack is blocked (and one of your offhand attacks has been used up). If the opponent made a critical hit and it is confirmed via the second dice roll it cannot be blocked in this manner.

Extra Note: Perhaps also allow an improved version that lets them burn AoO's in the same way - with a limit per round.

Another feat:

Two Weapon Combat Expertise:
Prereq: TWF, Combat Expertise
On your turn, you may opt to deduct up to 5 points of your BAB and use it as a shield bonus applied to your offhand weapon. The amount deducted from you BAB is doubled when applied to your offhand attacks - If you take a 5 point penalty on your BAB using this feat then our offhand takes a -10 penalty. This effect remains until you next turn. This effect stacks with the Combat Expertise Feat. If you are no longer holding you offhand weapon (dropped it, disarmed, etc.) for any reason you loose the benefit immediately. You may make no more than a single attack with your offhand weapon while using this feat.

---------------------------------------------------------------
In the Complete Warrior there are plenty of other TWF feats (and in other books as well) such as "Pin Shield" and the like. There are also "style" feats in Complete Warrior that allow you to do other thing dependant upon your weapon choices.

Perhaps here; Two Weapon Combat Expertise could be a prereq for Two Weapon Blocking.

Feats exist for this purpose and why there are so darn many of them; to allow characters to do amazing things. However your ideas are "freebies" that add to existing feats with no cost at all to the character - in your game world everyone who swings a sword would be stupid not to swing two of them seeing as a get a +2 right of the bat to AC plus the TWD feats...plus the Dex Bonuses that come with the high Dex required to get TWF feats...