forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Glorelendil wrote:*Alternately, the TN could be the adversary's dice roll...meaning not possible vs an EoS...

EoS?

Majestic wrote:

Glorelendil wrote:*Alternately, the TN could be the adversary's dice roll...meaning not possible vs an EoS...

EoS?

Eye of Sauron. A.k.a. "Gandalf for Bad Guys"

The Rule of Two Weapons
It's not allowed.

I don't find dual-wielding to be unreasonable, but I am seeing it from the perspective of those swash-bucklers and Renaissance-era duelists who would wield a light, fencing blade in their primary hand and anything from a parrying dagger to a weighted cape in their off-hand. As someone else noted, this would constitute an option between an active defense or an off-hand attack or an attempt to disarm one's opponent. The mechanics would be similar to the Lake-men's use of the buckler.

I don't really see any problem if the technique is properly designed.

vilainn6 wrote: I think the easiest solution to end that discussion is to release a rule for dual wielding instead of trying to explain why the game dont have such rule.

It was a deliberate design decision to not put in dual wielding.

Stormcrow wrote: Actually, rangers using two weapons comes from the Drizzt Do'Urden books and AD&D 2nd Edition, none of which Gygax had any part of. He was ousted from the company long before those.

Its entirely beside the point, but there was dual wielding in DnD 1e. It was indeed later attached to rangers in 2e.

Jon Hodgson wrote:

vilainn6 wrote: I think the easiest solution to end that discussion is to release a rule for dual wielding instead of trying to explain why the game dont have such rule.

It was a deliberate design decision to not put in dual wielding.

I'm very glad to see you say that in response. Not necessarily because I think that we shouldn't have dual wielding but that because people suggesting you should put rules in to appease a certain group of people rather than having to explain why it isn't there is, in my opinion, just plain wrong and completely missing the point.

Stick to your vision of Middle Earth. And good on you for doing so!

I'm all for burning the heretics but C7 wouldn't approve of this extreme suggestion.

Stormcrow wrote:

Jon Hodgson wrote:half a step away from shield surfing.

This is my problem with it. It's a film device used to make a character look tough, like gangstahs holding their guns sideways.

But more than that, it's often used to give players additional rolls. The abstract combat system doesn't track individual swings, so it shouldn't track individual swings on each hand. At most, using two weapons should adjust your attack statistics, as some have suggested.

Besides, the term dual-wielding is just plain uncouth. Tolkien would not have approved.

Honestly I think the real issue here is the perspective. Change the name to Two-Weapon fighting, stop arguing about a second attack, cause I don't think any sensible person has ever asked for a second attack. The 30 second combat turn indeed does not track individual swings. I made a post discussing the realities of using two weapons at once and it essentially acts as a "berserk" mode, where you have a slightly increased damage bonus, but lose parry. No other mechanics modified. Those who are trying to modify more than that (as in a larger quantity of modifications) are causing the foul taste in people's mouths. Using two weapons is a real thing. It is uncommon, has specific use cases, and has a small presence in the LOTR novels (not legolas in the movies...). But it's a real thing. It definitely doesn't have to be an official rule. House rules exist in just about every game.

I will say this as well. My bad for bringing it up. I regret not looking more thoroughly for these topics. I definitely stabbed a nest of bees.

C7 doesn't want to make it an official rule. Totally fine. We should stop asking.

Lots of people want some kind of two weapon mechanic house rule. Also totally fine. Let them. If someone makes a post in the future asking about ideas on a mechanic those who just can't restrain themselves (Hermes Serpent (yep, shamelessly calling you out)) should state that it's officially never going to be a ruling, and then allow these people to discuss their house rule without constantly interjecting with how horrible you might think the idea is. Let them have their fun.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go write up a house rule for parkour, shield surfing, and flying. Oh and I'm thinking of adding machine guns and steam engines, because I read on a fansite that Tolkein enjoyed apples.

If you had bothered to check I originally proposed the refluff dual wielding a weapon as a buckler way back when this came up a long time ago. I just hate sloppy posters who can't be bothered to research and think their idea is the greatest thing since forever and it's so good that no-one has ever thought of it.

The final word is that Francesco is not likely to write anything involving the use of two weapon fighting in any form as he's very much the Tolkien purist, not to mention that M-e E or the Tolkien Estate would put their views forward. They are not known for being adventurous with the Professor's work..