Does Dual-Wielding = Double Damage?

[overgeeked]

How are we feeling about this lately?

The simpler the better. Advantage to-hit and advantage on damage. Done.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

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!).

 

[GMMichael]

In real life? We use guns these days. We have very few bands of roaming adventurers expecting to get into melee weapon combat.

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?

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.

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. . . ?

Now if only D&D will bring back Double Weapons like the the two-bladed sword (aka swordstaff).

Can't your DM do this?

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.

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."

 

[Umbran]

We use guns in modern fantasy RPGs, too.

Yeah, but he was mentioning D&D. I didn't want to go to apples and oranges.

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.

Hm. If my post made it sound like I meant that the off-hand weapon was just for parrying, that wasn't my intent. I can restate: The basic point of having two weapons is that one of them can be used for feint and parry, while having the other than can strike.

If you always use one weapon for one use, that becomes predictable, and your opponent can use that against you.

 

[Corinnguard]

Can't your DM do this?

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.

If there was a way, I would see about importing a double weapon from Level Up. Double weapons in A5e do 1d8/1d8 (Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning) and have the following properties- Dual-Wielding, Parrying, Two-Handed.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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?

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.

Can't your DM do this?

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.

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."

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.

 

[mach1.9pants]

The double-axe was the dumbest thing I've ever seen

I see your double axe, and raise you the double flail

It was most certainly dire.

It's interesting that most dual wielding is in dueling and unarmed combat IRL. The exact opposite of DnD combats

 

[Corinnguard]

Sometimes two weapon heads aren't better than one.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I see your double axe, and raise you the double flail.

I mean, yeah, you're totally going to kill yourself with that thing but at least you could kind of paddle like a kayak with it and hit something.

Check this thing out! (This is actually from a PHB!)

What possible use could you have for this?

 

[James Gasik]

Speaking of paddles, during 3.5 I had a few people who wanted to use this thing...