overgeeked
B/X Known World
The simpler the better. Advantage to-hit and advantage on damage. Done.How are we feeling about this lately?
The simpler the better. Advantage to-hit and advantage on damage. Done.How are we feeling about this lately?
Yes the lack of good shield rules is a major pet peeve of mine. D&D tends to treat shields mostly as this wall you strap to your arm. 2e at least gave you Shield-Punch, Shield Parries, and the Shield Rush. 3e allowed Shield Bashes (with Feats to improve them), and 4e had a few Shield Powers, as well as the ridiculous but fun Snapping Tetsudo Paragon Path (tangentially relevant to this thread, as it allowed you to, and god do I feel silly even typing this- dual wield shields!).That's one of the things I always find funny/annoying when it comes to Shields in D&D. IF the rules ever let you strike with a shield, (and 5e doesn't have this, AFAIR), then they always make you take a feat (specialty training) to do it.
IRL, if you can't strike with a shield, you really, really don't know what you're doing. You are not even close to "proficient" with a shield.
We use guns in modern fantasy RPGs, too. Does a dual-pistol-wielder damage twice as fast as a single-wielder? What if the latter bears a ballistic shield?In real life? We use guns these days. We have very few bands of roaming adventurers expecting to get into melee weapon combat.
Good point. If you're wearing armor, it's probably: parry the heavy attack, ignore the light attack. If you have a shield, it's probably: block the more accurate attack, counterattack through the secondary weapon. . . ?Since it is less common in RL and in D&D, a melee combatant with a single weapon might not know how to defend themselves very well against a dual-wielder. A slight plus, but nothing more.
Can't your DM do this?Now if only D&D will bring back Double Weapons like the the two-bladed sword (aka swordstaff).
I have a rule: anything that could cause damage does at least a d4. A shield is not an ideal weapon, but it should do something. If you have weapon training, maybe it can do d6. Regarding the question @Bluenose touched on - what's a weapon - I'd say that the tool must be designed to injure or kill, which leaves shields out (of dual-wielding purposes). They can still do damage, but they're not "weapons."That's one of the things I always find funny/annoying when it comes to Shields in D&D. IF the rules ever let you strike with a shield, (and 5e doesn't have this, AFAIR), then they always make you take a feat (specialty training) to do it.
We use guns in modern fantasy RPGs, too.
The "seconda mano" (secondary weapon) isn't made just to parry. Many of maneuvers are made to hit with the "prima mano" (main weapon), get parried or move the opponent where you want, damage with seconda mano. So, the second weapon is made to hit. But any combination is legit and having a varied set of maneuvers is what make the style efficient.
We're using D&D Beyond for our latest adventure campaign. As far as I can tell, there is no way to import 3pp or homebrewed material from outside D&D Beyond.Can't your DM do this?
Firearms could absolutely do twice as much damage on two hits from two pistols. Unfortunately for the wielder, you'd have a heck of a time reloading with your hands full, though! (I'm thinking of flintlock-style pistols). Also - any kind of gun's accuracy would probably be thrown terribly out of whack by firing two of them.We use guns in modern fantasy RPGs, too. Does a dual-pistol-wielder damage twice as fast as a single-wielder? What if the latter bears a ballistic shield?
Any DM can, but many don't feel comfortable doing it. Some because they don't fancy themselves designers; some because their players wouldn't go for it. It's a wide world out there.Can't your DM do this?
Agreed. It's one of those strange artifacts of HP (in particular in D&D). It's theoretically quite easy to "rattle" your opponent with a shield. OTOH, it isn't very easy at all to KILL your opponent with a shield. Still, I'd rather they deal damage than not, myself.I have a rule: anything that could cause damage does at least a d4. A shield is not an ideal weapon, but it should do something. If you have weapon training, maybe it can do d6. Regarding the question @Bluenose touched on - what's a weapon - I'd say that the tool must be designed to injure or kill, which leaves shields out (of dual-wielding purposes). They can still do damage, but they're not "weapons."
I see your double axe, and raise you the double flailThe double-axe was the dumbest thing I've ever seen
I see your double axe, and raise you the double flail.
Generally, two weapons means no real change in attack paces in Rapier. It does require the defender to deal with those differently, and it's harder to hit a dual wielder.It came up again: a PC with two weapons wants to do two-times the damage.
This time, I didn't think about the rules-answer, I wondered about the real life answer. Is someone twice as likely to die when getting jumped by a thug with two knives? Twice as likely to get cut? What if the victim is wearing armor? What if the thug is a swordsman with two swords? Don't you lose momentum when your next attack is from the opposite side of your body? What about reach?
How are we feeling about this lately?
I was persuaded to run a D&D 5e campaign for some friends after some time away from the system, and when I was reminded of this (they were fighting skeletons and the spear-wielding barbarian was not having a good time) I prompted went "screw that, that's stupid, I'm giving it weapon stats". Honestly, there's a lot of 5e rules I dislike as a matter of taste, but that's one of the few that I feel is outright bad design.That's one of the things I always find funny/annoying when it comes to Shields in D&D. IF the rules ever let you strike with a shield, (and 5e doesn't have this, AFAIR), then they always make you take a feat (specialty training) to do it.
IRL, if you can't strike with a shield, you really, really don't know what you're doing. You are not even close to "proficient" with a shield.
Speaking of paddles, during 3.5 I had a few people who wanted to use this thing...
This two-bladed sword is detachable. https://www.karatemart.com/images/products/large/detachable-double-blade-slasher.jpg You could stow it away like you would with two ordinary swords. But when needed, you can put them together.
I mean, it would actually work with something like a lightsabre where you don't need to put much force behind your strike to be able to cut. As long as you don't get yourself with the cutting bits, but then, that's true of all weapons. Try not to get yourself.I first started playing shortly after the prequel trilogy came out, and you bet your bippy I was ALL about that Darth Maul dual blading goodness. Add in Final Fantasy IX and Chrono Cross, it was a good while before I was willing to accept how inherently ridiculous the concept is.
Most other weapons aren't 80% blade with the grip in the middle though. The angles you can point your blade in are SEVERELY limited by the fact you have another blade pointed back at you. Though with Maul's weapon (unlike the FFIX and Chrono Cross examples), you can at least turn the other blade on and off as needed. Downside is there's no safe place to touch your blade, which removes a lot of viable sword techniques from the equation.I mean, it would actually work with something like a lightsabre where you don't need to put much force behind your strike to be able to cut. As long as you don't get yourself with the cutting bits, but then, that's true of all weapons. Try not to get yourself.
You're right, of course. I have retconned his sabres in my mind to be more staff and less blade. I was thinking more like four feet of staff and eighteen inches a side of lightsabre, but that's not what his staffsabre looks like at all.Most other weapons aren't 80% blade with the grip in the middle though. The angles you can point your blade in are SEVERELY limited by the fact you have another blade pointed back at you. Though with Maul's weapon (unlike the FFIX and Chrono Cross examples), you can at least turn the other blade on and off as needed. Downside is there's no safe place to touch your blade, which removes a lot of viable sword techniques from the equation.