Two-weapons fighting isn't much in the spirit of LotR but let's face it; at one point or another, it's bound to be asked by one of the players. However, I'm not sure how to implement two-weapon fighting in TOR.

Historically, two-weapon fighting aimed to provide more opportunities for lethal attacks while the opponent's weapon was bent, as opposed to a flurry of attacks as it is often portrayed in fantasy RPGs. In other words, a weapon counter-attacks while the other weapon is used to parry.

I thought of giving a second weapon a parry bonus equal to a buckler and leave it at that, with the possibility to enhance the style with a mastery (spend hope for combat advantage? +1 damage equal to encumbrance of second weapon? Wounding hit on a great or extraordinary success?)

It could also be delivered via cultural virtues, although I don't really see which culture would train for that style. The Beornings and/or Woodmen could develop a two-hatchet fighting style, and Wood Elves could have a twin-knives (short swords) fighting style.

One one side I don't want to go high fantasy, but I don't want to deny it on the premises that the main characters didn't do it in the books.

Glorfindel

Allow two attacks, the first at -1 feat die, the second at negative 2? If you go negative in your total fear die, you are not proficient enough to attempt it?

Personally, I would avoid getting elaborate: a player who equips a second weapon lowers the edge rating of his primary weapon by one. Both weapons must be pure 1-handed weapons (e.g. no longswords). That's it.

They still only get one attack (an attack is more than one strike, after all), they lose the benefit of a shield, and a 2-hander still does more damage and has a higher injury rating. But, as you say, the two-weapon combination has more wound potential.

-Jeff

I'd avoid multiple attacks or for that matter, anything that would make two-weapon fighting an 'optimal' choice without serious investment in masteries/cultural virtues.

the -1 edge factor is interesting...

That's pretty good Jaif. It's very much along the lines that I was thinking.
Why do players choose the twin weapon option? They think that it will grant them an extra attack in combat, usually. Otherwise they would go with sword n' board.
I would allow them to use the Longsword and the Long Hafted Axe in twin weapon combat because when used one handed they are exactly the same as the normal one handed ones, except with extra encumbrance.
I was going to suggest that the off handed weapon would simply add one point to the primary weapons base damage per point of skill.

Hafdal of Esgaroth is a starting character with Cultural weapon(swords) at 2 points. He elects to be armed with a longsword and shortsword combination. His base damage for his attack is now 7 instead of 5. He could however achieve the same effect by wielding a regular sword and shortsword for less encumbrance or by wielding his longsword in both hands.

Berengar the Grey is a Beorning, he is armed with an axe and dagger. His skills are axe 3 and dagger 1. His shield has been smashed by his opponent. His damage for his axe is now 6.

I might actually consider that both this combined with the -1 to edge for primary weapon are fair and reasonable. What do you think?

Using this abstract style means that the 'cheese' factor should disappear as characters realise they are no better off wielding a Longsword in their off hand then a dagger.

I'm not a fan of the whole "two weapons doubles your attack rate" school of thought, because it really doesn't. Really, just pick up two long, stout sticks and swing them around for a while. Sure, you can do some sort of windmilling action which would get you killed, but try to actually make solid, strong, controlled swings, while giving some thought to defending yourself. Swinging a weapon is a full-body action, not something you do with just one arm. Some games offer a slight damage boost, some offer a small attack bonus, and some offer a small defensive bonus, or a mixture of the three. All are reasonable. Fighting with a pair of weapons can be done, and can be effective, but the whole "two attacks with a small attack penalty" just doesn't seem realistic at all.

No one has yet asked this in our group, but i guess you could have a sword in one hand and a flaming brand in the other (thats quite LOTR)....

If it arises I think I would:

--Force the loremaster to assign another enemy to the wielder automatically, so the nasty loremaster doesnt have a choice who to attack...he has to engage the characters 2nd 'threat' (LMB, p.45)

--If you have a weapon in each hand and get a 6T dice, instead of assigning [weapon damage + bonus damage] to one target, you can assign [damage] to one target, and [damage] to another

So its quick to play still, and gives some advantage to giving up shields?

So a player would trade a parry bonus (from 1 to 5) for a damage bonus (from 1 to 5)?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Personally, I think that would be enough (and is kept simple enough as a trade-off) without adding anything else. Virtues could improve that, but KISS is good for that type of game IMHO. Besides, I would still favour the use of shield as this is much more in the spirit of the books.

Glorfindel

In an older thread based on favouring in multiple weapons, I'd suggested something along the line of a parrying dagger or short blade, the real-life example of two weapon fighting. The weapon itself carried innate bonuses to parry (nothing big, +1 I think) only if people favoured in the short sword/dagger (seeing as only duelists did this). It could receive specific valour rewards that increased its parry value, and to represent the added lethality, I thought of allowing a player character to spend a hope point to receive an extra attack with the weapon once a round. I even think the dagger came with the innate ability that if a Gandalf rune was rolled, you needn't spend the hope (but I think that was for an expertly crafted dagger). I even think I made it only accessible as a reward to boot.

Just lowering one's edge is pretty good too, I enjoy the subtlety, and using rewards to enhance its appeal might balance the loss of the more beneficial parry value. However, I find off-hand weapons were used more defensively rather than offensively in pretty much all cultural examples, save for the dramatic ones; though it's true they ultimately increased one's lethality. I support the edge reduction!

I don't agree. I believe if you look at medieval fighting manuals (or Samurai ones), you'll see one hand bind while the other strikes an exposed area. The point isn't the parry, it's the attack.

-Jeff

edit: I should also point out that the OP said this as well.

I agree that to go the two-weapon route for an extra attack is definitely a cheese factor move prompted by too much Drizzt Do'Urden tales, and I agree that for the sake of simplicity it should definitely NOT be an optimal choice.

That being said, I suggest a different approach - due in part to me agreeing with Jaif.

While it's true the style was for defense many times especially in more the renassaince swashbuckling era, but as he points out it was for offense just as often. Due to the reason he points out - it was to help create openings, similar to a boxer's technique of leading with his one hand repeatedly attempting to cause the defender to over-commit defense to one area, allowing an opening for his haymaker.


Thus - the idea that presents itself in my mind is NOT extra damage - but increased chance to hit the target. Increased damage by contrast implies both weapons are routinely hitting - which is usually not the case. Instead, usually you allow one to be blocked so that you can stike more effectively with the other. Similar to sending multiple blitzers in Football defense; hopefully the offense commits to one side, leaving a free blitzer; but rarely both blitzers get to the QB.

So why not make a two-weapon wielder HIT more often - but do the same damage per hit; in lieu of more defense.


Unfortunatley, I'm not a master of the mechanics yet as I haven't practiced them yet - I've just read them; but initially I am thinking something along the lines of:

An off hand weapon provides +2 to attack rolls.
Alternatively you can wield a "Parrying dagger" (or it's equivalent of that type of weapon) to apply a +1 to attacks in Forward and Open, or +1 to parry in Defensive stances. (thus giving some flexibility depending on your needs).


Regardless of how the consensus agrees, I do believe that not all should have access to this style - whether you make it a cultural virtue, cultural blessing, or what.


Legolas (in the Movies) looked quite nifty with a pair of blades. I don't know how many are a fan of Midnight D20 setty by Fantasy Flight games, but the Snow Elves and their twin fighting knives were pretty darn cool (specifically the narrative flavor and fluff around their style - and not nearly as cheesey as say: Bladesingers).



Robert

Hi Rob

I don't disagree with you at all: two-weapon fighting should increase hit ratio more that damage output.

With an abstract system like TOR's however, hit ratio and damage output are more or less the same thing. When a player-hero hits for 5 points of damage, it isn't clear whether he hits 5 times for 1 point of damage each or one big hit of 5 damage.

Lets see what parameters we can play with.

- Success dice (TWF could grant combat advantage for 1 additional feat die per combat)
- Feat die (TWF could grant a re-roll on the feat die)
- Target Number to hit (TWF could grant a -2 TN to hit opponent)
- Damage (TWF could result in higher damage rating simply as a abstraction (overabstraction?) of the damage system)
- Edge (TWF could lower the edge number required to injure)
- Injury TN (TWF could make it harder for armor to absorb blow. Somehow this one fits the least IMO)
- Great or Extraordinary success (TWF could do something extra on a great or extra success, like deal damage to multiple opponent, provide a parry bonus from next blow, deal a wounding hit etc).
- favoured weapon (I must admit I'm not familiar with that part of the rules. I though favourite only meant favoured attribute when spending hope...)

From your last post, i like the idea of varying the effect based on the stance. This would solve the "TWF can be defensive/TWC can also be offensive" arguments.

Glorfindel

Lots of good ideas there Glorfindel. The one thing that needs to be clear is that a player doesn't get an extra attack roll. Most of your ideas will work fine and can be explained by the different perceptions of why a second weapon would be used.
I agree that the Injury TN seems to fit least and I think that the last two are a little too involved.
I would probably ask which one of the first 5 options my players preferred and make that my house rule. My own preference would still be the extra damage one. I don't think that it is over abstraction and simply mirrors the parry, as you previously mentioned.

I used to do some Dark Age re-enactment with (blunt) metal weapons, and frequently fought in this style, just because it's fun. The most basic technique is to use your off-hand weapon (a small axe is good) to parry your opponent's blow, lock it up if possible, and then close to inside their guard. It's only really good against a single opponent. You feel a bit lost in a shieldwall setup!

I agree that "two attacks" is not a good way to portray this. It is however a pretty aggressive mode of fighting, unless you just sit back and parry everything.

So I would suggest simply changing the TNs for each stance:

Forward 4 (you're not really defending yourself at all, and it's going to be really hard for one opponent to parry both weapons, just watch out for the other people attacking you)
Open 8 (the same, but less extreme, so only 1 difference)
Defensive 12 (no different from defending with just a sword).

Alright, so here my take on Two-Weapon Fighting:

A companion may fight with one of the following weapons in their off-hand in conjunction with a primary weapon* for greater effects: dagger (including dagger skill for torches and small improvised weapons), short sword, axe.

*Spears, ranged weapons and two-handed weapons may not be used in two-weapon fighting. Weapons that can wielded 1-H/2-H (like long sword and long-hafted axe) can be used in TWF provided that they are wielded one-handed.

Forward Stance: reduce the edge rating of the primary weapon by 1.
Reasoning: The aggressive stance results in more hits that find their mark, as the opponent cannot efficiently block the flurry of incoming blows.

Open Stance: increase the damage rating of the weapon by 2.
Reasoning: With the abstracted combat system of TOR, more hits ultimately leads to more damage. That would be half of a 1-H to 2-H increase (the other half being the +2 to injury rating).

Defensive Stance: grants a +1 parry bonus as a buckler.
Reasoning: Anything better than that gives TWF a better deal than shields (parry bonus to encumbrance ratio), which shouldn't be allowed IMO.

Rearward Stance: TWF grants no benefit when rearward.

Notes: I excluded spears from TWF mainly to avoid edge rating to go down to 8, but also because I feel it is the least least thematic (and feasible). Also I'm still hesitating between damage bonus of +2 or +1. +1 might be more in line with a +1 parry bonus and -1 edge. I still have to find the algorithm between damage bonus and parry bonus. Finally, I really wanted TWF to somehow grant a parry bonus to represent the branch that Thorin took to defend himself when his shield was broken (hence his name of Oakenshield) and how the companion used fiery brands to scare-up wargs.

The above would considered 'vanilla' two-weapon fighting. Cultural virtues could enhance that.

Altogether, this might feel a bit "meh", but that's half intentional. Shield were preferred in the stories and I want to preserve this feeling.

Glorfindel

Perhaps "meh" in specific mechanics; but the overall the biggest advantage (at least how you're detailing it) is the flexibility and variety that the fighting style offers.

Which I think is thematically the most viable - it simply offers more optionss in what it can do for the individual choosing to employ it.

Good work Glorfindel
Robert

Glorfindel, I think your take is too generous - it gives no reason to use a buckler at all that I can see, when you could be holding a dagger instead. Am I missing something?

There's a reason why fighting with two weapons wasn't a very common style in real life - it doesn't work all that well. You may be able to put in more strikes per minute with two weapons, but a defender who sits tight behind a big shield won't find it much more difficult than defending against a single weapon. Their difficulty is that you have more tricks up your sleeve than a fighter with sword and shield, and they have to be particularly careful coming forward at you.

I think any Parry bonus is probably too much. A buckler is a lot more effective at stopping blows than a dagger, and probably better than a short sword, because of the problem of leverage.

I also have a bit of a problem with giving bonuses to Damage or Edge, which makes it seems as though blows from a fighter wielding two weapons are carrying more weight (I know this isn't your rationale, but that's how it feels). And if anything, it's the other way around - having the off-hand weapon (especially an axe) makes balance more difficult and requires more strength to control the weapons effectively.

If you don't like fiddling with the TNs, how about just changing the results of a Gandalf rune? In Forward stance, you get to land a blow with your offhand weapon as well as your main one (instead of landing a Piercing Blow?). In Defensive stance, you get to disarm your opponent (as for Bearded Axe). In Open stance, you can choose one or the other.

If you go this route, then it might make sense to make this ability a Virtue.

No you are not missing anything. On the contrary you've put the finger on that houserule's main flaw (which I've realised only after posting the rule when I got back to my book and realised dagger as an encumbrance of 0).

As for the unbalanced of the off-hand weapon, it isn't worst than having a shield. As for the shield being a better tool to parry than a dagger, one doesn't parry with the dagger in TWF (unless you're fencing, but that's another story); you parry with your main weapon and counter-attack with the off-hand weapon. TWF is about taking advantage of a weapon bind (which you can control better with a sword than with a shield) to exploit an opening; not really about sending more strike per minute (I've done a bit of re-enactment too, but nothing very serious). I'm still struggling how to best represent this reality however. Perhaps you are right about lowering the TN to hit...

I get your point about the edge bonus - even if restricted to forward stance - being overly generous (well I don't think its mechanically that advantageous, but it is of a scale that is only provided by virtues in the rules as presented).

The more I think about it, the more I might go back to my initial thought of making TWF mechanically relevant via virtues only.

Playing with the Gandalf rune result is an avenue I hadn't considered however. Thanks for the tip.

Sorry guys, but I think that far too much emphasis is now going onto the flexibility of TWF and how it can be used to represent different effects in different circumstances. IMO, to maintain the spirit of the game rules it needs to be a single rule. It also needs to be kept simple and fairly abstract. It's becoming far too nuanced.
Most of Glorfindel's earlier ideas are perfectly reasonable and any single effect can be explained away by a LM's own interpretation of what he wants from TWF. I would suggest that anyone who wants to try to evoke more realistic combat might be better trying a less abstract game system, such as Mongoose Legend.

Glorfindel, I would avoid going down the line of Virtues for this. Like mounted combat, any character should, in theory, be capable of TWF(just like sword n' board and two handed). See my previous post where Berengar has had his shield smashed and elects to wield his dagger in his off hand.

I would use Glorfindels TWF-"rules", but add a limitation to the dagger use for parrying

For example:
Daggers can can only be used in defense, if the enemy uses a spear, dagger or shortsword -mainly piercing weapons-

I didn't find right now a rule about torches & their encumbrance, but I wouldn't limit torches the same way, because for me they seem a little bit sturdier than a dagger.

Not sure I completely agree here.

There seem to be two kinds of fighting being confused: one is where Thorin gets his shield broken and makes do with an oak branch, or where Aragorn seizes a torch in his left hand to take advantage of the Nazguls' dislike of fire. Neither is a TWF by choice, they just improvise under pressure. This I agree needs to be a simple houserule for any character, and I think it's what Halbarad is looking for. Compared to just using a single weapon with no shield, it should probably offer a small defensive bonus at the expense of attack.

The other is a counter-attacking style of fighting that uses a left-hand weapon to parry and trap the opponent's blade, hook shield edges, parry while spinning, etc. To my mind that's a Virtue, in the sense that it's only available if you can find someone to teach it to you, and they probably won't teach you unless you are part of their martial tradition, duelling school, or whatever. This is more sensibly represented by special results on G runes, IMO, as there are fancy tricks available, but they won't come off very often. This could reasonably offer an overall advantage over single weapon alone, so as it's in line with other Cultural Virtues and Gifts.

At the moment, I'm envisioning both routes: basic combat option AND cultural virtue existing simultaneously.

I think the damage bonus is the best way to go, even if it isn't necessarily the best way to realistically represent TWF. But that's the whole point isn't it? TOR is a narrative system and not a realistic or situationist system.

So either damage bonus or a decreased TN to hit an opponent, I'm still hesitating. Either way, neither option result into more injuries (or a higher chance of dealing injuries) which is what I feel TWF should represent; this part might get represented via cultural virtues instead. As for Thorin Oakenshield using a branch to defend himself, I'm starting to think that it was more of a unique situation like "spend a hope point to treat an object as an improvised shield" type of houserule. With a narrative system like TOR's, ruling-on-the-fly becomes much easier for game masters (I mean lormasters), especially for situations that aren't likely to present themselves again.

As for versatility of TWF, the game already gives the choice of three melee stances, each with their own quirks and options. I must admit that building upon the three stances is rather temping for the amateur rule-craftsman that I am. But I should really get more hours of play before I go farther. After all, I've been having the books for less than a fortnight...

I can totally see why TWF is so enticing to players. The whole parry,spin and riposte thing that I believe Thriddle is talking about is too simulationist for me and a little too High Mediaeval/renaissance for what I perceive to be a Dark Ages setting.
I don't know that I can think of any cultures that would actively teach TWF and I can't see duelling anywhere except, perhaps, in Gondor.
I think that you guys might well be able to set it up as a Mastery under the Virtue system but I still reckon it's getting too complex for my tastes by doing that.

That being said - for fans of the movies themselves, there's an iconic scene of Legolas in Helm's deep with two fighting daggers that many people are an instant fan of. I know I was truly impressed with the action sequence there.

Though I would definitely concede that it is the exception and not the rule.


Perhaps Glorfindel pegged it right - allow the expenditure of a hope point to pick up an extra weapon - either as a parrying bonus, attack bonus, or dmg bonus; instead of making it a normal staplepoint of the combat mechanics.


Robert

I can see both Elves of Mirkwood and Woodmen of the Wilderness learn how to fight with two weapons, not so much as a dueling style, but as a result of the environment they live in. I could see some more aggressive Beornings using this style as well.

For the same reason as Elves prefer short bows over great bows for their quickness and low burden, carrying a secondary weapon is less cumbersome than a (full sized) shield. Also, two-weapon fighting suits the ambush, skirmish style fighting better than open warfare (which may convene better to the Woodland people than to the dwarves and men of Dale or of the the long lake who are more accustomed to open battlegrounds). In opposition, I wouldn't see the High Elves of Imladris or the aristocracy of Gondor using this style of fighting; wide and open battlefields and large scale battles would better suit the use of a shield.

Perter Jackson's movies aside, Middle-Earth is still a fantasy setting and I'm Ok with a less strict interpretation of the high middle ages / late dark ages.

Yup, I agree with you to a certain extent Glorfindel. I could certainly see both the cultures you mention using TWF but teaching it, i 'm not so sure about. Neither am I sure that they would prefer it over weapon and shield fighting.
I suppose that one of the better examples we can observe from a cinematic standpoint would be Daniel Day Lewis in Last of the Mohicans. Tomahawk and dagger TWF fighting style. For the most part he seems to parry with the tomahawk and strike with the dagger.
I imagine that players would not be so keen on TWF if their damage base was the base for their offhand weapon and their primary weapon's function became to add +1 to their parry.
I am totally for the inclusion of TWF as an option but I honestly think that adding to the base damage gives the player what they are looking for in an abstract way, which is extra damage if they can't get an extra attack.

The point about shields is that they only really went out of use with the advent of very heavy armours like Full Plate. That doesn't exist in TOR so I would say that the shield is very much the defensive combat item of choice.

I can easily, easily picture a Beorning with two axes. Sure, Tolkien may not have written it (not that I've made an extensive review), but it fits.

I still go with -1 edge over raw damage. I think it makes for a more interesting choice than going with a two-handed weapon.

-Jeff

P.S. I completely agree with the elf/woodman angle as well. I can see them foresty-types ditching a shield.

I'm a bit concerned about it being a bit too much mechanically speaking; that would be the benefit of a virtue. But lets see:

Shield offers a bonus to parry going from +1 to +3, for an encumbrance of 1 to 5.

From the long sword / long hafted axe entry, it appears that going 2-handed offers +2 damage and +2 injury TN (or +4 damage and +2 injury TN for 'full-fledged' 2H weapons). Drawback is that you can't use a shield. Two-handed weapons (including 'bastard' weapons) are more cumbersome but still less than the encumbrance of a weapon + shield combined.

Two-weapon fighting would grant -1 edge rating (on primary weapon, I suppose?). Drawback would also be that you can't use a shield. You'd have to carry an extra weapon (which counts against your encumbrance) but still would be less cumbersome than a weapon and a shield combined, making TWF comparable with a two-handed weapon.

The bottom line is whether -1 edge is in line with +2 damage and +2 injury TN. Perhaps it is... I'll have to dwell on this.

An other route altogether would be to leave all stats aside and give specific called shot options for practitioners of the TWF style. But beyond a wounding hit on a great or extraordinary success (successful called shot), I'm a bit at a loss there.

I'd like to know if this came-up in the development stage of the game, and what the designers came-up with, and the reasons why it wasn't included in the core rules (I'd guess simply a matter of style).

Glorfindel, are you suggesting that there should be more than the proposed -1 edge or that the -1 edge is too powerful as compared to the benefits of a 'bastard weapon'?

I was trying to demonstrate that if -1 edge is mechanically balanced with +2 damage and +2 injury TN, then ruling TWF as -1 edge on primary weapon could be a fair option.

I still feel it would be a bit too enticing however...

I understand what you are suggesting Glorfindel. I was just trying to gauge your initial thoughts on what the likely outcome might be.

Oh I agree that I can definitely live without this in the setting. It seems...rather exotic But I like the Mohican analogy, and two short weapons makes sense for fighting in dense forest.

I'm not saying the rules should be "realistic", they just need to have some connection with reality, however tenuous. And it would be nice if the results generated translated in "story" terms, if you see what I mean.

One simple truth is that this isn't something someone can do just through familiarity with the weapons. You have to pick a particular combo and practice with it, or all you will get is the "improvised buckler" effect (Hope point for an improvised +1 shield sounds good to me).

Another is that the main advantage of fighting with two weapons is not that you can hit twice, but that you can block and hit simultaneously. This is just as true in AD 500 as in AD 1500.

Keeping it very simple:

Compared to sword and shield, you're increasing your chances of hitting the opponent, but making it more likely you get hit.

Compared to a single short sword alone, you need more coordination and skill, but potentially you're better off in both attack and defence.

How should all that be reflected? It's a matter of taste, and there are problems. One is that in TOR your Parry doesn't improve as your weapon skill rises; instead it becomes more rewarding to fight in Defensive stance. It's not immediately obvious how that relates to a fighting style that relies on weapon skill to parry incoming blows.

I think the -1 Edge is perhaps a fair reflection of the chance of bypassing defences (better than +x damage). But I'd want to see a downside besides just not having a shield. Maybe -1 Edge but -1 damage? You can't always put your full body force into a blow when you need some of your muscles to control your other weapon.

I don't have the answers, but none of the proposals feel simple enough yet thematic enough so far.

You are right about none of the proposed solutions being perfect Thriddle and, ultimately, it comes down to personal preference. You prefer the edge adjustment and I prefer the extra damage. You believe that your choice better reflects the realities of TWF. Mine gives my players what they are looking for, which is an increase in base damage that gets better as they gain experience(unlike the edge modifier) and an abstract reflection of their increasing skill at TWF.

You are also right that in 500 or 1500 the point of TWF would have been the same. The opportunities to use it would be very different though. Heavier armours(and lack of armour) has led to different fighting styles and very different weapons being developed to those found in a Dark Age setting.

Where I think that we can all whole-heartedly agree though, is on the use of a hope point for an improvised buckler effect

I think...

... that -1 edge is pretty balanced with +2 damage and +2 injury TN. Trade for trade, both seem thematically appropriate and wielding similar mechanical results.

The alternative to both would be a +1 to +3 parry bonus from a shield, i.e. the difference between a standard attribute score and a favoured one; also 'weighting' around other masteries (shields also grant improved bonus against initial volley, which is non-negligible).

In the end, I might prefer -1 edge over damage bonus as a distinction between TWF and two-handed combat.

(continued from previous post...)

I like the idea of the bonus for extra damage being based on the skill rating of the second weapon, but it sets a precedent whereas numerical values improve with skill training that is otherwise absent from the game.

On a side note, I'm concerned about neither parry bonus nor endurance improving significantly throughout the game (endurance can go up at the rate of 2 points per mastery). A skilled warrior will not stand longer against the same enemies as a inexperienced warrior (although the skilled warrior will get rid of the same enemies much faster).

If you take just a snapshot of the endurance at a given point, I believe you would definitely see the growing concern you cite.

However if you look at the bigger picture of all the ways in which one can improve as they become a 'skilled warrior'.


Additional Endurance via mastery
Additional Endurance via increased Heart score
Improved equipment such as shield/armor to avoid some damage
Other virtues learned via advancement that improves overall combat skills

Ultimately though - to me the game is not advertised as a heavy combat involved in the game. Combats are meant to be long-lastingly detrimental; and a more advanced character will be better equipped w/ skills and traits as well that will prove useful in initially engaging the foes - such as sniffing out or planning ambushes etc.

Sure a straight up arena fight toe-to-toe will prove quite evenly matched many times; but that is not the whole picture.

At least that's not what I'm seeing so far from having read all the rules twice now (haven't actually played yet - planning that for during our Christmas break).

Robert

For me, a central feature of the game is that orcs are always a threat. I may change as I play more, but right now this sits well with me.

These are two very good points. JRRT used real-world inspirations wherever he could, and allowing too much flexibility with dual-wield will bring cheese. So let me amend my original suggestion.

Elves and Woodsmen can dual-wield daggers. Beornings can dual-wield axes. The player still only gets one attack per round, but the edge-rating is reduced by 1. Dual-wielded daggers have a total enc of 1.

Note that Dwarves have access to a mattock, which is better than dual-wielded axes by the above rules.

-Jeff

I really like the simplicity here that you've established.

In order for the Dwarves, Elves or Woodmen to fight this way will it (should it) be a cultural virtue that one must learn via his increased Wisdom? Or is this part of the "base template" of the culture??



While I do like the simplistic nature of the approach, I still personally prefer to see the fighting style make attacks more likely to actually hit (by way of thematically trapping and counter striking) as opposed to lowered edge (or higher damage for that matter).

But I can't argue that your suggestion isn't viable or that it's game-breaking at all - just a style preference of play for me is all.



Robert

+1 Big Time.

I love this being a product of the system. As I've said before, I've always been a fan of D&D especially 3rd edition and now Pathfinder - but it was always a bone of contention that "orcs" had to be templated with several levels of fighter or barbarian to be a threat to a 10th level party of adventurers. I mean how many such orcs exist anyways??? And where were they at all those adventuring days that the PCs travelled around at 1-4th level...?

I like the way TOR has created the mechanics so that the same orc is still almost as much of a threat 3 years after someone became an adventurer as he was the first day the hero walked out of town.

Robert

Hey Glorindel, I have been thinking on your last point there and I tend to agree that, although the extra damage was a nice idea, it does set a new precedent that was previously absent. Hafdal's player will be disappointed but I think that the -1 edge works well enough within the current confines.