Races and Classes, Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Primitive Screwhead]

JohnSnow,

So would you recommend that the TWF mechanics allow this flexibility to the character, possibly by granting a minor bonus that can be shifted once per round between attack, defence, and damage as the swashbuckler desired?

If Sword and Board held the best defence and 2-H held the best offense, then this approach would allow the TWF to not quite match in capability, but be better in flexibility.


...and I have always thought swashbucklers were Fighter/Rogues anyway

 

[JohnSnow]

JohnSnow,

So would you recommend that the TWF mechanics allow this flexibility to the character, possibly by granting a minor bonus that can be shifted once per round between attack, defence, and damage as the swashbuckler desired?

If Sword and Board held the best defence and 2-H held the best offense, then this approach would allow the TWF to not quite match in capability, but be better in flexibility.


...and I have always thought swashbucklers were Fighter/Rogues anyway

It would have to be handled carefully to keep it from being overpowered. Firstly, I'd restrict it to lighter off-hand weapons originally (the classic rapier and dagger), perhaps with a feat to use pairs of heavier weapons (2 rapiers, 2 scimitars, or the like).

Overall, this sounds like a good use for powers for the "swashbuckling" classes, like rangers and rogues. My gut instinct would be to allow the class to gain either a bonus to defense or to offense. It should be a switchable system.

It sounds pretty tricky, but with all the at-will and per-encounter powers, it should be possible to figure out.

 

[Kaisoku]

I think the major drawback to fighting with two large weapons comes from trying to use them with the same combat technique as a long/short combo.

Basically, two longer weapons would require a different sort of movements to be effective (momentum, positioning, etc)... as different as using a poking weapon vs a chopping weapon practically.

There should be room for the Whirling Dervish, as much as the Renaissance Fencer.

What this says to me though is that there would need to be a choice to make.. a style of combat choice essentially. A larger weapon in the offhand isn't necessarily "more damage" just as using two weapons in general isn't necessarily more damage (as many have attested to in this thread, and I agree). More damage might come from the offhand weapon tying up or distracting so you land your other weapon more fully, which equates to a flat bonus and not a dice difference.

So maybe when choosing your TWF, it's not so general.. and instead you choose your combat style (long + short, two long, spear or trident + net, onehand weapon + cloak, etc). This means a person who does TWF stuff wouldn't be able to just suddenly use two sabers and fight like a saracen, or even better... use a net effectively in the offhand, when he's chosen the rapier/dagger style. Or at least not as effectively...

Then there would always be the option to maybe train in that style.. so a feat or tree option to pick up another weapon combination that you can use ALL your TWF tree with, etc.

This would probably provide the most balance between gamist and simulationist mechanics.



Also, I'd personally like to see an empty offhand give a bit of a flexible bonus as well. It's always seemed to me that I want to use my empty hand when doing things close quarters with someone, or disarming or whatnot... maybe this would reflect better in having mechanics like disarm, stun/knockdown/trip, grapple, etc, give a bonus to attack or DC if you have an empty hand.

There's also the Tai Chi blade style of combat, where the offhand empty hand is critical in balancing the movements to get the most out of the normally bending blade. This is more "far eastern" style that would probably serve better in a PHBX or supplement though.

 

[JVisgaitis]

As others have mentioned TWF is no different to the old sword and board...except in style. Any weapon combat that involves two seperate 'weapons' or objects being wielded is more difficult than wielding only one object. For instance, an untrained individual would find it as difficult to be effective with sword and board as with two small-medium sized weapons.

No way! The reason why shields are so effective is you don't need to do a lot to be adequate with them. A good size shield covers you usually from the knee up without much effort. The only concern is the leg on the shield side. Wielding two medium weapons is a nightmare for most people. That's why sword and board is such a common and effective style. Its easy to learn and really effective.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Real-life and Semi Real-life:
I've been fighting and fake fighting for years. I know a younger lady who is amazingly good with paired chinese broadswords when she saw me fighting sword and shield she said "I wouldn't have a chance against you in a fair fight". I figure we'd manage to kill each other at about the same time.

Sword and shield works amazingly well. Shields are very effective, much more effecive the D&d has ever portrayed them. From my experience two weapon fighting is useful to learn, for those times you don't have a shield at hand.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The reason why shields are so effective is you don't need to do a lot to be adequate with them. A good size shield covers you usually from the knee up without much effort. The only concern is the leg on the shield side.

More training than most would expect, though- you don't want to merely interpose the shield into the arc of the incoming weapon blow. If you do, you could get in serious trouble.

Taking a blow directly:

1) Against a piercing weapon like the pilum, your shield gets pierced and you have to drop the shield...assuming the spear didn't also pierce your arm or torso.

2) Against a weapon like an axe, you'd run the risk of the axe actually biting into the shield and cleaving it...with similar results to the pilum attack above, or merely making the shield into a useless mess.

3) Against something like a mace, flail or maul, you'd basically be allowing the force of the blow to transmit directly into your arm or body (softened by whatever padding you have)- and hydrostatic shock can be devastating- potentially even lethal. If your arm goes numb your defense is open. If the force of the blow compresses your ribcage enough, you could experience arythmia resulting in unconsciousness or death.

The trick to avoiding the scenarios above is learning to deflect the weapon with the shield, not merely absorbing the blow.

 

[JVisgaitis]

More training than most would expect, though- you don't want to merely interpose the shield into the arc of the incoming weapon blow.

Learning to hold a shield at a 45 degree angle to glance off a blow or become ambidextrous? I'd take "A" any day of the week.

Though of course I am very ambidextrous since I broke my right arm when I was a kid. I do a lot of things backwards for a righty. I wear awatch on my right hand, bat lefty in baseball, etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Learning to hold a shield at a 45 degree angle to glance off a blow or become ambidextrous? I'd take "A" any day of the week.

Easier? Yes. (I'm also ambi, BTW.)

But its not just holding the shield at an angle- its getting the correct angle for the particular blow, while simultaneously not opening up your shielded side to another strike from an unexpected angle.

 

[JohnSnow]

Real-life and Semi Real-life:
I've been fighting and fake fighting for years. I know a younger lady who is amazingly good with paired chinese broadswords when she saw me fighting sword and shield she said "I wouldn't have a chance against you in a fair fight". I figure we'd manage to kill each other at about the same time.

Sword and shield works amazingly well. Shields are very effective, much more effecive the D&d has ever portrayed them. From my experience two weapon fighting is useful to learn, for those times you don't have a shield at hand.

I'd like to point out, briefly, that Chinese broadswords are basically shortswords by D&D definitions.

The problem with Two-Weapon fighting with large blades is that mostly, it leads to what my friends and I call "the windmill effect." We have a buddy who used to do this in the SCA, and we put him to the test. With his rattan SCA sticks, he's fine. The sticks hit and do damage...no problem.

With a bladed weapon, it gets tricky. When you try to strike with the edge, the windmilling that's necessary to manipulate two large weapons tends to make you hit with, what, on an edged weapon, is the flat of the blade. Which is a great way to break your swords.

As I pointed out on WotC's Star Wars forums, this isn't an issue with short staves, as in Escrima, or lightsabers, where the entire blade "surface" is a cutting "edge." With a standard sword, it's a problem. It's not insurmountable problem, but it's a problem.

So, by my experience, I'd go this route:

Two-Weapon fighting (sword and small paired weapon, or two light blades): 1 feat.
Two-Weapon fighting (2 large cutting blades): 1 feat.

Weapon "tricks" or "maneuvers" - choose for each weapon. So a two-weapon fighter might have the advantage of using both dagger maneuvers and rapier maneuvers, for example. Just as the weapon and shield guy can probably use a "shield" maneuver in the same round as his "weapon maneuver." I'm sure the shield maneuver is usually, no doubt, defensive. That would typically be the case with a secondary weapon as well.

Should be interesting to see how WotC decided to handle it.

 

[Talislan]

No way! The reason why shields are so effective is you don't need to do a lot to be adequate with them. A good size shield covers you usually from the knee up without much effort. The only concern is the leg on the shield side. Wielding two medium weapons is a nightmare for most people. That's why sword and board is such a common and effective style. Its easy to learn and really effective.

Sorry but a shield doesn't work by covering you up (apart from against certain missile weapons). As others have stated its all about deflection. This is much harder to master.

Like this statement though:

Sword and shield works amazingly well. Shields are very effective, much more effecive the D&d has ever portrayed them.

and this

, I'd personally like to see an empty offhand give a bit of a flexible bonus as well. It's always seemed to me that I want to use my empty hand when doing things close quarters with someone, or disarming or whatnot... maybe this would reflect better in having mechanics like disarm, stun/knockdown/trip, grapple, etc, give a bonus to attack or DC if you have an empty hand.

I would like to see quite a few of the ideas posted here, including making sword and board more realistic (deflect attack not damage maybe) and useful. Bottom line is though, that if your character is trained in a 'style' of fighting you should get the benefits it provides and only get penalised on other styles of fighting. This really needs an adjustment in both the 'weapon proficiency' rules and style rules like 'TWF' for the full flavour to come good.

T.