I fiddled around with Dual Wielding rules for a player of mine - who would have used it without any mechanical benefit just for style reasons. The easiest way is to treat it as wielding a Long sword or Long-hafted axe in two hands: just add 2 to Damage and Injury ratings of the weapon (and I would restrict it to swords and axes. I initially thought about adding Encumbrance of the off-hand weapon to Damage and Injury or Parry, and then about relating it to stance: add Encumbrance to Damage and Injury in Forward Stance, to Parry in Defensive Stance and let the player chose in Open Stance.
In the end, we decided to use a very rules-light system, since we play only every few weeks/months and it is difficult to remember the rules as they are: we simply added +1 to Damage, Injury, Rating and Encumbrance of the main weapon, in this case a sword. Fixed values, easy to use and somewhat different from two-handed weapons.
Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
Just want to pitch in with my take on "dual wielding". I think there is a difference between fighting with two coordinated weapons, and just hold a weapon in your off-hand for more offensive power.
We're going to playtest this next time: instead of a shield or the use of a two-handed weapon, the character can wield a second one-handed weapon in his free hand. This gives him second attack right after the first. However, the number of Success dice for each attack is reduced by the Encumbrance Value of the weapon.
Some examples:
A Barding with Sword 4D and Dagger 2D uses a Sword and a Dagger. His skill for Sword is reduced to 2D, but his skill for Dagger remains the same (as it has 0 in Encumbrance).
An elf is using two daggers, cinematic style! His skill is not reduced at all.
A mad Dwarf with a skill in Axe at 4D picks up a second Axe. His skill with both weapons would be 2D.
These attacks can be directed at the same foe, or at different ones. The penalty to Success dice only comes into play if he actually attacks with both weapons. There are no penalty, for instance, if a character wants to hold two weapons but only attack with one at a time (for instance, holding an axe in one hand and a throwing weapon in the other).
Well, that's our take on it.
Eirik
We're going to playtest this next time: instead of a shield or the use of a two-handed weapon, the character can wield a second one-handed weapon in his free hand. This gives him second attack right after the first. However, the number of Success dice for each attack is reduced by the Encumbrance Value of the weapon.
Some examples:
A Barding with Sword 4D and Dagger 2D uses a Sword and a Dagger. His skill for Sword is reduced to 2D, but his skill for Dagger remains the same (as it has 0 in Encumbrance).
An elf is using two daggers, cinematic style! His skill is not reduced at all.
A mad Dwarf with a skill in Axe at 4D picks up a second Axe. His skill with both weapons would be 2D.
These attacks can be directed at the same foe, or at different ones. The penalty to Success dice only comes into play if he actually attacks with both weapons. There are no penalty, for instance, if a character wants to hold two weapons but only attack with one at a time (for instance, holding an axe in one hand and a throwing weapon in the other).
Well, that's our take on it.
Eirik
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
Hi there. I'm new to these forums, although not to the game.
I had a slightly radical idea for handling dual-wielding, but I think it might be enjoyable. It's a new idea, let me know if you see major (or minor problems).
Make a new Weapon Skill, call it whatever name seems appropriate ("Dual Wielding", "Two Weapon Fighting").
If you want to learn how to fight with two weapons at once, you have to invest Experience Points into learning this (i.e., 1 skill rank). You can use it untrained like any other skill, but you are not likely to succeed.
Here's how it works:
>When you choose to attack an adversary using two weapons at once, first you must make a Dual Wielding check. To do this, roll the Feat die and add a number of Success dice equal to your ranks in the Dual Wielding weapon skill. The TN is 16. What happens next depends on the roll:
>>If you rolled a failure, you may not attack with either weapon. This represents your inability (or lack of training) to take advantage of your chosen fighting style, and effectively means you missed your adversary.
>>If you rolled a success, you may attack with both weapons, and resolve each attack separately using their respective weapon skill ranks. This does not guarantee a success with either weapon, only an attempt. This means your combat training has paid off, and you can attempt to fight with two weapons.
In summary, the player with these rules can invest Experience Points in a new Weapon Skill: Dual Wielding, and thus become proficient at using two weapons at once. If the player succeeds on the Dual Wielding roll, the player may attack with both weapons, resolving each attack separately. If the player fails the Dual WIelding roll, the player may not attack with either weapon, effectively missing.
The way I see it, wielding two weapons at once is a risk and requires great skill, and this method is an indication of that. You could complicate (or flesh it out) by allowing different results for this new skill based on Eye of Sauron, Gandalf rune, great successes and the like, and I considered it, but I like the simplicity used here. You don't need a reference chart.
If the player wants to invest valuable XP into a whole new skill to become proficient at making two attacks in a turn, then I think the player should be allowed to do that, and the XP earns the player that right. It does not guarantee the ability to use both weapons (although higher ranks makes it more likely), and the hits and misses still have to be resolved by the individual weapon skills (for example Sword and Dagger).
And it goes without saying that only one-handed melee weapons could be dual-wielded.
I had a slightly radical idea for handling dual-wielding, but I think it might be enjoyable. It's a new idea, let me know if you see major (or minor problems).
Make a new Weapon Skill, call it whatever name seems appropriate ("Dual Wielding", "Two Weapon Fighting").
If you want to learn how to fight with two weapons at once, you have to invest Experience Points into learning this (i.e., 1 skill rank). You can use it untrained like any other skill, but you are not likely to succeed.
Here's how it works:
>When you choose to attack an adversary using two weapons at once, first you must make a Dual Wielding check. To do this, roll the Feat die and add a number of Success dice equal to your ranks in the Dual Wielding weapon skill. The TN is 16. What happens next depends on the roll:
>>If you rolled a failure, you may not attack with either weapon. This represents your inability (or lack of training) to take advantage of your chosen fighting style, and effectively means you missed your adversary.
>>If you rolled a success, you may attack with both weapons, and resolve each attack separately using their respective weapon skill ranks. This does not guarantee a success with either weapon, only an attempt. This means your combat training has paid off, and you can attempt to fight with two weapons.
In summary, the player with these rules can invest Experience Points in a new Weapon Skill: Dual Wielding, and thus become proficient at using two weapons at once. If the player succeeds on the Dual Wielding roll, the player may attack with both weapons, resolving each attack separately. If the player fails the Dual WIelding roll, the player may not attack with either weapon, effectively missing.
The way I see it, wielding two weapons at once is a risk and requires great skill, and this method is an indication of that. You could complicate (or flesh it out) by allowing different results for this new skill based on Eye of Sauron, Gandalf rune, great successes and the like, and I considered it, but I like the simplicity used here. You don't need a reference chart.
If the player wants to invest valuable XP into a whole new skill to become proficient at making two attacks in a turn, then I think the player should be allowed to do that, and the XP earns the player that right. It does not guarantee the ability to use both weapons (although higher ranks makes it more likely), and the hits and misses still have to be resolved by the individual weapon skills (for example Sword and Dagger).
And it goes without saying that only one-handed melee weapons could be dual-wielded.
-
Glorelendil
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
I'm brand new to TOR (just bought the rules) but I'm loving, at least conceptually, how the game has a distinct flavor, and not every character combination ("dual wielding hobbit assassin") is possible.
That said, I can see a role for TWF, but it should be hard to achieve, and not too powerful. I would make it something like:
- Can only dual wield axe, sword, dagger
- Prerequisite of Skill 4 in both weapons you plan to dual wield. (2 or 3 in dagger) Any less, in either weapon, and you have some penalty.
- The ability itself is a cultural virtue; maybe just Mirkwood Elves and Bardings. (One could argue for/against all the cultures.)
- Benefits:
+1 parry
On a miss, you get a second chance to hit, with a +4 TN, with your other weapon (alternately, you could get an extra skill die, representing that 1 in 6 times you land both weapons)
Something like that. Possible, but rare and hard-ish to get. Definitely not something you get at the start, or even soon.
That said, I can see a role for TWF, but it should be hard to achieve, and not too powerful. I would make it something like:
- Can only dual wield axe, sword, dagger
- Prerequisite of Skill 4 in both weapons you plan to dual wield. (2 or 3 in dagger) Any less, in either weapon, and you have some penalty.
- The ability itself is a cultural virtue; maybe just Mirkwood Elves and Bardings. (One could argue for/against all the cultures.)
- Benefits:
+1 parry
On a miss, you get a second chance to hit, with a +4 TN, with your other weapon (alternately, you could get an extra skill die, representing that 1 in 6 times you land both weapons)
Something like that. Possible, but rare and hard-ish to get. Definitely not something you get at the start, or even soon.
The Munchkin Formerly Known as Elfcrusher
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator
-
MasterSmithwise
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:51 pm
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
I haven't read page 3, so I apologize if I'm reviving a very dead thread, and if I'm saying something someone else already said.
I implemented my own dual-wielding house rule at the request of a player and it didn't work out. I've now read several suggestions. I realized that everyone was trying to make the dual wielding match the system. When what I think needs to happen is the system matching the dual wielding.
Friends and I would smack each other with sticks/clubs for sport. We'd "sword fight" in mini tournaments out in the woods. 1v1, appendages struck must be held behind the back, or stand on one leg or on knees etc. It was a lot of fun. We would take PVC pipe and wrap them in tape and pipe insulation and they'd make for good weapons that were weighted well, and if you got hit really hard wouldn't break bones or draw blood. Just some minor bruising unless you wore a coat or something.
So, I loved taking 2 smaller sticks instead of 1 big stick, or 1 medium stick and a shield (which we crafted from round plastic sleds). I would use my left, non dominant hand (assuming I'm facing off with someone who is right handed) to parry attacks. If I was able to parry the blow to the outside my right dominant hand would be free to move and only be blocked by a shield, which is surprisingly easy to get around if you just slam your body into them, haha. Anyway... there's lots of other times when the dual-wielding was incredibly powerful, but ONLY when I had the advantage. If, at any time one of my weapons crossed in front of my other, I was screwed. So, if I attacked with either of my weapons across the front, and they deflected it and allowed my weapon to continue in its path, I would then have to first raise my opposite weapon up and over my deflected weapon (careful not to hit my own arm) before I could use it, which left my flank very exposed.
So what does this mean? Well, at least in my experience, 2 weapons are deadly if control is maintained, but they're crap for defending. If you think of the benefits of a shield -- blocking projectile, pushing your opponent around, deflecting their attacks simply by moving in front of them -- even a buckler is amazing. The same can absolutely NOT be said for a weapon in place of a shield. Likewise with an empty hand instead of a shield. That empty hand can push and grab at will. Parry, grab opponents wrist, stab. (That last one rarely worked but it's just an example).
Dual wielding = great for exploitation, bad for defenses.
So let's make the game rules fit this reality.
If you're dual wielding, add the encumbrance of the offhand weapon to your damage bonus (meaning only greater than normal successes allow for the extra damage to represent an exploitation).
If you're dual wielding, reduce your parry by the encumbrance of the off hand weapon. They're crap for defense. The whole "make a cross with the two weapons to block the downward attack" thing only happens in movies, and the muscles used to hold them in place are not strong enough to stop that attack from just blowing through to the hilts anyway, which could disarm one or both of your weapons, and then you're dead.
Personally I think this makes a TON of sense, since the only person who's likely to dual wield is a high body/ high wits character. High wits... wits... someone who is going to notice the opportunities for exploitation on the battlefield. The high parry will offset the penalty, and when you finally land a good blow it's going to be a great blow. This also means that it's not for everyone. You'll have to specifically build a dual wielding character or you're going to be really hurting in fights.
As far a what weapons are available for dual-wielding? Keep it simple. This is a rules-light game, so let's keep it that way. One handed weapons can be dual wielded with one handed weapons. If you pick the larger 1 handed weapons you'll suffer from clumsiness, but when you strike that blow it'll be worth it.
NOTE:The parry rating is not necessarily straight up blow deflection (think Woodcrafty) but an excuse to add some sweet narrative around how you managed to not get hit. So apply that mentality to dual wielding. Hit or miss, incorporate what's happening with both hands if you want but know that only one weapon is making the parry or getting the hit. The narrative explains how the offhand helped make that happen. 30 second combat rounds offer a lot of time to do cool stuff. Throw in that Battle bonus die and things start getting awesome.
I implemented my own dual-wielding house rule at the request of a player and it didn't work out. I've now read several suggestions. I realized that everyone was trying to make the dual wielding match the system. When what I think needs to happen is the system matching the dual wielding.
Friends and I would smack each other with sticks/clubs for sport. We'd "sword fight" in mini tournaments out in the woods. 1v1, appendages struck must be held behind the back, or stand on one leg or on knees etc. It was a lot of fun. We would take PVC pipe and wrap them in tape and pipe insulation and they'd make for good weapons that were weighted well, and if you got hit really hard wouldn't break bones or draw blood. Just some minor bruising unless you wore a coat or something.
So, I loved taking 2 smaller sticks instead of 1 big stick, or 1 medium stick and a shield (which we crafted from round plastic sleds). I would use my left, non dominant hand (assuming I'm facing off with someone who is right handed) to parry attacks. If I was able to parry the blow to the outside my right dominant hand would be free to move and only be blocked by a shield, which is surprisingly easy to get around if you just slam your body into them, haha. Anyway... there's lots of other times when the dual-wielding was incredibly powerful, but ONLY when I had the advantage. If, at any time one of my weapons crossed in front of my other, I was screwed. So, if I attacked with either of my weapons across the front, and they deflected it and allowed my weapon to continue in its path, I would then have to first raise my opposite weapon up and over my deflected weapon (careful not to hit my own arm) before I could use it, which left my flank very exposed.
So what does this mean? Well, at least in my experience, 2 weapons are deadly if control is maintained, but they're crap for defending. If you think of the benefits of a shield -- blocking projectile, pushing your opponent around, deflecting their attacks simply by moving in front of them -- even a buckler is amazing. The same can absolutely NOT be said for a weapon in place of a shield. Likewise with an empty hand instead of a shield. That empty hand can push and grab at will. Parry, grab opponents wrist, stab. (That last one rarely worked but it's just an example).
Dual wielding = great for exploitation, bad for defenses.
So let's make the game rules fit this reality.
If you're dual wielding, add the encumbrance of the offhand weapon to your damage bonus (meaning only greater than normal successes allow for the extra damage to represent an exploitation).
If you're dual wielding, reduce your parry by the encumbrance of the off hand weapon. They're crap for defense. The whole "make a cross with the two weapons to block the downward attack" thing only happens in movies, and the muscles used to hold them in place are not strong enough to stop that attack from just blowing through to the hilts anyway, which could disarm one or both of your weapons, and then you're dead.
Personally I think this makes a TON of sense, since the only person who's likely to dual wield is a high body/ high wits character. High wits... wits... someone who is going to notice the opportunities for exploitation on the battlefield. The high parry will offset the penalty, and when you finally land a good blow it's going to be a great blow. This also means that it's not for everyone. You'll have to specifically build a dual wielding character or you're going to be really hurting in fights.
As far a what weapons are available for dual-wielding? Keep it simple. This is a rules-light game, so let's keep it that way. One handed weapons can be dual wielded with one handed weapons. If you pick the larger 1 handed weapons you'll suffer from clumsiness, but when you strike that blow it'll be worth it.
NOTE:The parry rating is not necessarily straight up blow deflection (think Woodcrafty) but an excuse to add some sweet narrative around how you managed to not get hit. So apply that mentality to dual wielding. Hit or miss, incorporate what's happening with both hands if you want but know that only one weapon is making the parry or getting the hit. The narrative explains how the offhand helped make that happen. 30 second combat rounds offer a lot of time to do cool stuff. Throw in that Battle bonus die and things start getting awesome.
Last edited by MasterSmithwise on Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[Outdated] Exhaustive Undertakings List: https://goo.gl/wYP84K
-
doctheweasel
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 10:14 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
I'm pretty sure they add to Protection rolls and not Parry.MasterSmithwise wrote: NOTE: Keep in mind that helmets add to parry. .
Check out our One Ring live play session podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.
-
Hermes Serpent
- Posts: 1649
- Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:28 pm
- Location: Sunny South Coast of Britain
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
Typical isn't it folks come along and want to change things and don't even know the rules well enough to play properly before messing with them.
Some TOR Information on my G+ Drive.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id= ... sp=sharing
"The One Ring's not a computer game, dictated by stats and inflexible rules, it's a story telling game." - Clawless Dragon
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id= ... sp=sharing
"The One Ring's not a computer game, dictated by stats and inflexible rules, it's a story telling game." - Clawless Dragon
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
That seems overly harsh, Hermes Serpent.
Even if Dual Wielding isn't someone's cup of tea, MasterSmithwise certainly put a lot of thought and effort into his proposed house rule. He articulated well (with real life examples) what he thought and his proposal is certainly pretty minor (not game-breaking in any way).
[shrug]
Even if Dual Wielding isn't someone's cup of tea, MasterSmithwise certainly put a lot of thought and effort into his proposed house rule. He articulated well (with real life examples) what he thought and his proposal is certainly pretty minor (not game-breaking in any way).
[shrug]
Adventure Summaries for my long-running group (currently playing through The Darkening of Mirkwood/Mirkwood Campaign), and the Tale of Years for a second, lower-level group (in the same campaign).
-
MasterSmithwise
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:51 pm
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
Oh my bad. You're totally right. That was an incredibly minor point though so I hope it doesn't change opinions too much. I was simply wanting to remind people that the numbers are there as rules/mechanics, and don't have to dictate the story/narrative. And Woodcrafty is still a great example of that.doctheweasel wrote:I'm pretty sure they add to Protection rolls and not Parry.MasterSmithwise wrote: NOTE: Keep in mind that helmets add to parry. .
Thanks for pointing that out. I'd not want to confuse other people into thinking it added to parry.[Outdated] Exhaustive Undertakings List: https://goo.gl/wYP84K
-
doctheweasel
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 10:14 pm
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
Re: Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!
No worries.MasterSmithwise wrote:Oh my bad. You're totally right. That was an incredibly minor point though so I hope it doesn't change opinions too much. I was simply wanting to remind people that the numbers are there as rules/mechanics, and don't have to dictate the story/narrative. And Woodcrafty is still a great example of that.doctheweasel wrote:I'm pretty sure they add to Protection rolls and not Parry.MasterSmithwise wrote: NOTE: Keep in mind that helmets add to parry. .
Now my work here is done.
(opens umbrella and flies away)
Check out our One Ring live play session podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest