Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 3951987" data-attributes="member: 5100">I used to spar with wooden swords a lot -- no training, just playing, but it's still some experience and I've been told several times, even by trained martial artists that I have great instincts for fighting.  My preferred weapon would be equivalent to a bastard sword, but I've done longsword and dagger, too.  I'm not truly ambidextrous, but I seem to be more even than most people.  IME, the differences are this: 1) Better radius of control.  In 3e terms, you'd be harder to flank because you can effectively deal with something in a broader area.  2) This also translates to a better defense.  I could defend against more opponents and be more effective in doing so with an off-hand weapon.  I'd give a defense bonus to a TWF character.3) On the flip side, I didn't actually get too many more opportunities to attack because the off-hand was usually used to guard.  If I used my left hand to attack, it was a distraction that weakened both hands.  The attack penalties in 3E seemed pretty reasonable.  I actually stopped trying to do TWF because I didn't feel I had the control I needed to avoid actually hurting my partners.4) Less damage.  I could never get myself braced for a good attack when I was using two weapons.  In D&D terms, that might just be the matter of not getting the 1.5 multiplier for strength (I had a 300 lb bench in high school and college) and a two-hander.  Regardless, it always seemed pretty significant.My general feeling is that, if I needed to hold off multiple attackers, I'd use TWF -- especially if I thought they'd tire quickly or help was on the way.  If I needed to deal with one or two foes, I'd prefer to have a single, larger weapon that would let me make better use of my size.</blockquote>

Verification