Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5997621" data-attributes="member: 59506">I've been away for a few days, so I'm just catching up here.   I agree with both of these statements. Statistically, you're doing less damage per round (on average) due to making two attack rolls (instead of one), with no real bonus at all (other than splitting between two targets...which at best only benefits in certain, rare situations - such as two-targets within range with low HP's... Also, it doesn't model at all, what two-weapon fighting's real purpose was. However, we'd run into all kinds of other problems by attempting to make it 100% modeled on reality. The purpose of dual-wielding weapons was to increase your defensive capability (much in the way a buckler would) while not sacrificing the off-hands offensive potential. It was a style that was popular and useful, though for only a limited period. It was mostly supplanted due to lighter (and therefore faster) weapons, allowing one to reduce your cross-sectional area (smaller target) while maintaining the same offensive capability. These lighter, faster weapons (small sword, epee, foil) were lighter than rapiers and espadas, and therefore quicker. However, D&D doesn't have a mechanical way in which to differentiate this. Rapiers, espadas, small swords, epees, and foils would all be Finesse Weapons in D&D with the same benefits - even though they were quite different in application and use. And here's the big kicker about dual wielding: the training for this was almost always for use with light dueling weapons and against lightly armored or unarmored foes, and not for use with or against battlefield weapons, heavily armored opponents, and battlefield situations. To model this would require a complete reworking and rethinking of the entire combat assumptions of the game...and that's just not feasible. D&D throws civilian dueling weapons into the same pot as battlefield weapons, and makes them just as useful in any situation.    On this I agree.  See below...  On this I agree also.   And I'm back to not agreeing.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  If you and Ahnehnois mean that the D&D version of TWF (the game mechanics) have little to do with historical realism, I agree.  If however, you're both saying that Two-Weapon Fighting has no historical precedent or basis in reality, I'd say that's an innacurate claim.  Absolutely correct.    Although true, triqui, Li Shenron did say mostly used for defense. And that is correct.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  But, as to claims that two-weapon fighting is not realistic or historic:  There were also fechtbuchs by Joseph Swetnam (The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence - 1617 - illustrations below), and Camillo Agrippa (Treatise on the Science of Arms and Philosophy - 1553)...among others...that also detailed using two weapons. There are three main ways to employ dual wielding:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You can parry all attacks with the dagger and respond with the rapier.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You can parry with either the sword or the dagger, depending on which the attack is made, and respond with the opposite weapon.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You can parry with both weapons at once.</li> </ul><a href="http://josephswetnam.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/swetnam-low-passage.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://josephswetnam.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/swetnam-low-passage.jpg?w=470" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swetnam-True_Guard.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Swetnam-True_Guard.jpg/220px-Swetnam-True_Guard.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></a> <a href="http://josephswetnam.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/swetnam-low-crosse_parry.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://josephswetnam.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/swetnam-low-crosse_parry.jpg?w=470&h=230" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></a> And yes, two medium sized weapons could be used simultaneously (however, those medium sized weapons were always Rapiers, espadas, or lighter). <img src="http://www.fmapulse.com/sites/default/files/articles/perry/2012/ambidexterity_LR.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />From Camillo Agrippa's Treatise on the Science of Arms and Philosophy (1553) <img src="http://churvage.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/two-rapier-fighting.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />  And of course, we can't not mention the Japanese use of two weapons simultaneously. <img src="http://www.muye24ki.com/muye24ki/ssanggum_chongdo.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /> The Japanes Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi combination) was used this way quite often. As well as the sue of a Katana and scabbard (with the scabbard used for defense), and even two Katana's (or uchigatana's) used simultaneously (as Miyamoto Musashi was reputed to have done in several duals). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P03jigazou.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/P03jigazou.jpg/220px-P03jigazou.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></a>Miyamoto Musashi     I agree.  I mind. What's the point of designing a mechanic, if you're also going to design in elements that negates it's usefulness...? Seems like a waste of effort and text space to me... However, I do appreciate mechanical elements that combine or limit the necessity of multiple die rolls.    I agree.  Incorrect.  Bingo!   D&D already combines or includes a lot of things that really didn't go together at all (like the aforementioned mix of civilian dueling weapons alongside battlefield weapons and armor) or didn't exist to begin with(neologisms like longswords and chain mail, or the never existed studded leather armor...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />) But these D&D'isms aren't likely to go away any time soon, so one may as well roll with it.  So, how about something like this: Fighter's can automatically dual-wield without needing an additional Feat. But the benefit is only the same as using a small shield (buckler): +1 to AC. Classes that don't automatically gain the shield proficiency for small shields can dual wield for the AC bonus, but suffer a -2 or -4 to attacks. But, in order to show specialized training in two-weapon fighting, and provide an extra bonus, but attempting to keep it inline with realistic applications as much as possible, an actual Two-Weapon Fighting Feat can provide the following benefits: +2 to Defense (AC) and +2 to Damage. However, one does not make two attack rolls, split attacks, or anything else. One attack roll providing a +2 to Damage, along with the constant +2 bonus to AC, as long as two weapons are wielded. Mechanically, that's kind of boring also. But I can see this being the pre-requisite for some other cool two-weapon powers-esque feats...like whirlwind attack or such.   That's the way I see it...Period!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification