Does Dual-Wielding = Double Damage?

[Mannahnin]

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.

True. Although in real life, you can also grab an opponent's shield to pull it out of the way or wrench their arm/throw them if they're bound into an arm strap, kick it, sunder it with an axe, and block a big chunk of the wielder's field of vision while they're raising it to defend their head.

Back in my LARP days I remember noticing that field of vision factor remarkably often when I switched from fighting two weapon primarily (long and short swords) to sword & board primarily.

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?

Accuracy with pistols makes a big difference, and considering how fast you can squeeze the trigger on a semi-auto... Overall it would certainly be possible to do twice as much damage in the same time (not counting clearing jams or reloading) if you were coordinated enough, but I think on average you wouldn't come close to that, due to reduced accuracy.

The other thing to do would be to create a bind with the two primary weapons to leave you a chance to force the issue with your second, though your opponent will probably try to grab or block/deflect with their hand in that case. Although if they're using a long weapon - a spear, many polearms, most 2-H Swords - your advantage is countered to a large degree if they're able to keep you at a range where your second weapon can't reach them. It can be very hard to deflect a big weapon with a single-handed one.

Yes, that's my experience as well. You can shift which hand/direction the actual attack is coming from vs. the feint/bind.

And also yes, trying to block/parry a large weapon wielded in two hands coming at you with a lot of angular momentum using a single handed weapon sucks. Shields handle that better due to greater mass and better anchoring/leverage, but of course against, say, a two-handed axe or maul you definitely don't want to catch a solid blow square on the shield where the impact may break it and carry through to your arm.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Good question. Realism, if I may, is really important to me in a game, because it sets a solid foundation of assumptions that all PCs can make. Without that, you get confused/paranoid PCs and a lot of explaining for the GM to do.

Ideally. In my experience, it can easily be a situation where one or more players and/or the GM have, fundamentally, different ideas of what reality is in a given case. In the matter at hand, how many players have studied actual two-weapon techniques either in a practice fashion or understanding of its history? I'd suspect far less than might want to play someone doing it in a game.

Was just thinking about this one. Dual-wielding has the inherent penalty of preventing shield-use. So there should be some benefit, right? I made a short list earlier, but it seems that wielding two weapons should give the wielder more options for ending/injuring opponents. That translates to more damage or more attacks or more maneuvers. But...balance. Dual-wielding can't become the ONLY choice (even if it's a good or bad one).

That was why its generally been a trade-off in BRP games between two-weapon/weapon-and-shield/two-handed weapon, and on the whole the least popular one (because its big benefit involved throwing away your main defense for an extra offense in a game system where that could be quite lethal to do; you could parry with your off-hand weapon instead, but if you did it was usually a substandard choice compared to a shield).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Accuracy with pistols makes a big difference, and considering how fast you can squeeze the trigger on a semi-auto... Overall it would certainly be possible to do twice as much damage in the same time (not counting clearing jams or reloading) if you were coordinated enough, but I think on average you wouldn't come close to that, due to reduced accuracy.

Its very difficult to coordinate both hands at the same time when using handguns. Though its controversial, the usual assumption is that the big advantage with two-gun users in the revolver era was being able to keep firing in alternation longer.

Yes, that's my experience as well. You can shift which hand/direction the actual attack is coming from vs. the feint/bind.

And also yes, trying to block/parry a large weapon wielded in two hands coming at you with a lot of angular momentum using a single handed weapon sucks. Shields handle that better due to greater mass and better anchoring/leverage, but of course against, say, a two-handed axe or maul you definitely don't want to catch a solid blow square on the shield where the impact may break it and carry through to your arm.

You're also better off against missiles. A whole lot better.

 

[aramis erak]

Was just thinking about this one. Dual-wielding has the inherent penalty of preventing shield-use. So there should be some benefit, right? I made a short list earlier, but it seems that wielding two weapons should give the wielder more options for ending/injuring opponents. That translates to more damage or more attacks or more maneuvers. But...balance. Dual-wielding can't become the ONLY choice (even if it's a good or bad one).

The use of a heater, kite, large lozenge, or large round shield really don't take much thinking; they do require a lot of training to get to consistent utility. An off-hand weapon, however, imposes much more cognitive load to be able to use it for extra attack options; using it purely defensively is still more than a large shield, but on par with a buckler/small or medium round/targe/small or medium lozenge... because those all require active defense .

It's a vey complex interaction of weapon choice, training, available cognitive ability, the same for the opponent, and the situation.
If I were to face Master Nytshaed again, I'd really rather use buckler and single sword with him using case of rapier (dual), because case is is slowest form in SCA rapier last we met. And I'm most comfortable with buckler and single. Of course, I expect I'd lose 5 for 6 vs him... even stacking the odds that way.

Likewise, in rapier, lacking an off hand is NOT a real penalty; if one's well trained in singlesword, their defense and riposte make a one-on-one very much a matter of being faster... or managing to compromise their sword. THere is an advantage to whomever has the longer reach, but even that's not telling... my reach is about 6" more than Nytshaed's, but his mastery of footwork more than makes up for my reach, and even when I'm using a further 4" more blade...

Then again, my pessimism about beating him is entirely because he was one of three individuals I studied rapier from.

 

[barasawa]

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?

Nope. In real life it gives you a better chance to take advantage of openings, so sometimes you can get an extra blow. However, you have the same strength and reflexes you have to split between two weapons. Being ambidextrous doesn't help with this, it just means you don't technically have an "off hand". When using one weapon you tend to use as much of your strength and reflexes with it as you can. Add another weapon and you have to divert resources to wield that at the same time.
Often dual weapons one is used to attack, and the other to defend. This is a bit better as you can still attack even while parrying, even if it's a bit less ability if using just one weapon. What dual weapons is great for is intimidating combatants that don't know how to handle it. Personally I liked seeing a Florentine fighter on the field, they were an easy "kill" for me. (SCA, nobody actually got hurt, other than their pride)

 

[James Gasik]

So maybe two weapon fighting should give you double the attacks, but each attack does half the damage, and half a shield bonus while we're at it.

 

[aramis erak]

So maybe two weapon fighting should give you double the attacks, but each attack does half the damage, and half a shield bonus while we're at it.

it's more "split the skill in twain, and take advantage on of of the two,but do full damage with each that hits."
A hit from a guy using two weapons is usually just as hard and telling as the sword and board guy... but neither is as likely to hit.

Getting hit in three styles (two of which are still in SCA use) by dual wielders, either hit is the same force (and in fact, sometimes more) than single sword or sword and board, but the accuracy is far less. In SCA Rapier, since it's lightest practical touch for safety reasons, dual requires separate authorizations due to the need to calibrate better. In SCA Heavy, one weapon, Sir Georg always got me in the head or sword arm. Dual, the one time I faced it (at a demo, no less), he wound up hitting many places - shield arm, thigh, head, once accidental to the gorget, an accidental to the cup, several to the body, one double where his arms crossed and his right hit my right arm, his left hit my left shoulder... but each shot was about the same force as single. (When he fully lets loose, he could flat bowl me over with a forward snap of his simulated axes...) Fencing, his dual was abot one in 20 a bit stronger than singlesword, but that was 90% me failing to do what he expected.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Good question. Realism, if I may, is really important to me in a game, because it sets a solid foundation of assumptions that all PCs can make. Without that, you get confused/paranoid PCs and a lot of explaining for the GM to do.


Was just thinking about this one. Dual-wielding has the inherent penalty of preventing shield-use. So there should be some benefit, right? I made a short list earlier, but it seems that wielding two weapons should give the wielder more options for ending/injuring opponents. That translates to more damage or more attacks or more maneuvers. But...balance. Dual-wielding can't become the ONLY choice (even if it's a good or bad one).

Dual wielding did not replace shield use because it was better than shields but because shields are heavy, awkward to carry (even for bucklers) and not really socially acceptable to carry around in a civilian context.
As far as I can tell, sword and offhand styles developed in Italy because street politics could be a bit intense and a duelling culture. But as states became more centralised the use of the sword (on the civilian side) was more for duelling the styles changed to single weapon and then the evolution from rapier to smallsword.

As for D&D, it is not granular enough for these nuances. The HP, AC and roll d20 to hit is not fine enough to really incorporate stuff like shield bashing, offhand weapons and the like in a satisfactory manner. Personally, I think it was a mistake to change the combat round to 6 seconds. It makes the combat seem more granular than the mechanics justifies.

As, to your first point about reality informing the mechanics, that is all very well, and can work fine as long as everyone at the table shares the same views about what is really possible.

 

[GMMichael]

As for D&D, it is not granular enough for these nuances. The HP, AC and roll d20 to hit is not fine enough to really incorporate stuff like shield bashing, offhand weapons and the like in a satisfactory manner. Personally, I think it was a mistake to change the combat round to 6 seconds. It makes the combat seem more granular than the mechanics justifies.

Hear, hear. It really takes a game with rules for combat styles. My game (Modos 2) is great with shield bashing and off-hand weapons, but the actions you take in combat don't address what each hand and foot are up to. It's just attack or defend. . . So if a shield gives you a defense bonus, I guess another axe would give an attack bonus.

 

[Thomas Shey]

People have spent more than half a century trying to bolt on combat elements to D&D that its just never had the load-bearing structure to support. It never really works well without reworking that core, but people keep trying to do it.