Dual Wielding again, comments and playtesting needed!

[PipeSmoker]

Me and a fellow Loremaster have dabbled a while regarding "fighting with 2 weapons".
Philosophy on Tolkien canon aside, we were not satisfied with the house rule granting a straight bonus based on stance (was that Rick H's?), but still wanted players had the chance to use this fancy fighting style (Meh. I like my shield.).
We will soon begin our playtesting, first we wanted something that seemed solid on paper and brainstormed using Shield Fighting as a starting concept (blessed be Francesco for Laketown supplement).
Our greatest effort was trying to make this fighting style balanced with weapon+shield style, 2 hander style, 1 weapon style.
Here's what we made, we'd like your comments, good or bad... and possibly your in-game reports!

FIGHTING WITH TWO WEAPONS

Fighting effectively with two weapons is extremely difficult for heroes not specifically trained in this combat style and, for obvious reasons such as size and function, not all weapons can be paired.
Each player hero can normally wield two weapons from the list below at the same time, but his only benefit would be to choose which one he’s going to use for his attack roll in the round.

Weapons that can be paired: Dagger, Short Sword, Sword, Axe.

A character that acquires the Dual Wielding Mastery (following the normal rules) is able to inflict an extra Endurance loss and has a better chance to wound his enemy.


NEW MASTERY - DUAL WIELDING (or TWO WEAPON FIGHTING or PAIRED WEAPONS)

You have to choose which one of the weapons you are wielding is primary (regardless of the hand which is holding it, no pesky bickers!) and roll your attack as usual. If the attack hits an enemy, roll the Feat die again: on a roll of [Gandalf minus Weapon Skill of secondary weapon], you inflict an additional loss of Endurance equal to the Damage rating of said secondary weapon.

TABLE for Secondary Weapon Additional Damage
(was not able import the table here, anyway it just shows the math above)

If the regular attack roll didn’t inflict a Piecing blow, but extra damage was inflicted (and only with these two conditions at the same time), the result of the additional Feat die is compared with the secondary weapon’s Edge. A Piercing blow may now be inflicted to the enemy by the secondary weapon following the usual rules (including any relevant Reward associated to the weapon, etc.).
In no case this Mastery can be used to inflict two Piercing blows in the same attack round.

After you have acquired the Dual Wielding Mastery, you may further increase your expertise in this combat style by acquiring Web of Steel or Deflect as endeavours during Fellowship Phases.

WEB OF STEEL
You may spend a Fellowship phase and 4 experience points to learn tricks, feints and how to weave a web of steel at your enemies until they remain off guard.

You lower by 1 the result needed on the additional Feat die to inflict extra damage with your secondary weapon (and possibly inflict a Piercing blow, following the usual rules).

DEFLECT
You may spend a Fellowship phase and 8 experience points to learn how to efficiently parry blows with both your weapons.

When you are in a close combat stance and are wielding two weapons your Parry rating receives a bonus of +1.

EXAMPLE
Walcaud, a Beornig with the Dual Wielding Mastery, is fighting a Black Uruk in a Defensive Stance.
He’s wielding his father’s Axe (Grievous, Axe Weapon Skill 4) and a strange Sword (Keen, Sword Weapon Skill 1) found in an ancient barrow along the shores of the Great River.
He decides the Axe is the primary weapon for the round and rolls 7 (Feat), 6, 4, 3, 1, beating TN 19.
He inflicts 13 Endurance points to the enemy (5 Axe Damage + 2 Grievous + 6 Damage Bonus for Great Succes).
He now rolls another Feat die for the secondary weapon and scores 9 (10 was needed, Gandalf - Sword Weapon Skill 1 = 10), inflicting no extra Endurance loss and no Piercing blows because his Sword Weapon Skill is too low, even if the Keen Sword would normally pierce with an Edge of 9.
Should Walcaud raise his Sword Weapon Skill to 2 or gain Web of Steel, in the same situation he would inflict 5 more Endurance points (Sword Damage rating) and inflict a Piercing blow requiring a Protection test at TN 16 (Sword Injury rating).

[Otaku-sempai]

For players who see their characters as swashbuckler-types or as trained duelists, I think that the two-weapon style is completely appropriate. While we can quibble over the details, I don't see anything inherently wrong or flawed with the way you have written it up.

[PipeSmoker]

Bad english aside?
Jokes apart,Otaku-sempai, do you think you are gonna test the rules in your game?
And if you would quibble ove the details, what will your quibbling be?

Thank you for your comment!

[Akira]

I find this very intriguing. I'll talk to my players and see if anyone is interested in trying that out in our next adventure (coming in a month or so, if everything goes well in the dreadful chambers of Dol Guldur...gh!).
I'll let you know!

[Otaku-sempai]

Bad english aside?
Jokes apart,Otaku-sempai, do you think you are gonna test the rules in your game?
And if you would quibble ove the details, what will your quibbling be?

Thank you for your comment!

I am not currently running or playing a TOR campaign, so I won't be play-testing this any time soon. By 'quibbles' I will give an example: Some months back, I wrote up the two-handed sword as a new weapon for TOR. There was a lot of give-and-take before it was properly balanced as an optional weapon. Your write-up seems pretty well-balanced to me, but someone else might discover one or two flaws that need to be worked out.

[Hermes Serpent]

TBH there's way more dual-weapon wielding going on in RPG's than ever happened in real life and that was mostly in a specific time period and in duels, never in any mass combat. Players want to do it because it sounds awesome and does extra damage (which I'm sure is their main criterion).

I usually stick with canon and for anything that isn't specifically mentioned in the books I'd look at it with an understanding that the civilizations that the Professor based his world on hadn't got further than the rough equivalent of ninth to eleventh century Europe despite being possibly up at a 14th or 15th century level of technology during the Second Age, a sort of Europe-equivalent climbing back after the Fall of Rome. Erebor, Dale and Esgaroth I think of as the Constantinople/Byzantium of Arda with technology and probably fashions well in advance of the rural backwaters of the Anduin Vales.

The Elves I consider akin to the post Roman outposts of Empire that, having built architectural and artistic marvels in the past, hanker for past glories. They are detached from the reality of encroaching barbarians, a sort of semi-historic Age of Arthur with their fight against the Shadow being the Arda equivalent of the loss of Roman-style institutions and lifestyle to the Saxons and Angles pouring out of the east of Britain from the near Continent.

Hobbits are secure in their delusions as were the farming folk of western and mid-Wales in the sixth century, protected by the frontline kingdoms of Brythonic tribes keeping the Saxon ex-foederati east of the Severn. While the Professor's liking for late Victorian/Edwardian rural idylls in the face of increasing late nineteenth century industrialisation greatly affect the view of the Shire and the illustrations of a neat, pocket handkerchief sized fields carefully tended their actual social structure owes more to the late Iron Age than the pre-WW1 British Midlands that Tolkien was raised in.

In short Tolkien's Arda works best if you stick, where possible, to what he wrote and if you need to alter things consider the real European historical events that coloured his view of his world rather than take generic fantasy material that has been warped by thirty years of power-gaming.

[PipeSmoker]

1) Thank you Akira! We will gladly hear about your experience with dual wielding. My group just left Dol Guldur in Those who tarry (TFW) and that was a blast, what a wonderful adventure they wrote!!!

2) Otaku Sempai, be my guest, again, what would your quibbling be? What would you tweak? We're looking for feedbacks, good or bad.

3) All good, Hermes Serpent, I respect that, but as I said:

Philosophy on Tolkien canon aside, we [...] still wanted players had the chance to use this fancy fighting style (Meh. I like my shield.).

Honestly I'm not fond of this strict view, to me it is forcing history into Arda. I know all the long debated matter I think, and I know a fair deal about ancient and medieval technology, I think, but to me the only sure thing is that history served as inspiration to our beloved Professor. Just that. To me, being true to Tolkien's work is on a different level.
Still there's need to be welcoming to those not that much inside Tolkien's work, and that can be done without throwing in full plates, zweihanders, crossbows and such (well, I admit I featured a crossbow inside Dol Guldur, but then again, what about Orc technology?).
Plus we got in the LOTR book the Witch King of Angmar wielding sword + knife at Weathertop and Aragorn fending the black riders while wielding 2 torches...

[Hermes Serpent]

Equating players dual-wielding weapons with the Witch-King says a lot about your players

Waving two torches about is hardly dual-wielding weapons which require far more finesse than bits of flaming wood.

Still you're going to play what you and your players want but it isn't Tolkien any more than D&D is Tolkien IMNSHO.

[PipeSmoker]

LOL, I wish you could be there next monday night, Hermes Serpent, you'll maybe disocver something about players.
I guess the trip to our place would not be worth it, your assumptions already seem humble enough to understand how Tolkien styled games can be while people dual-wields and power-plays around like the Witch King...

Now please, anyone furthering the topic? Tolkien canon aside, we're dual wielding anyway, mind you all. It was stated since my opening post.

[Otaku-sempai]

Since you asked so nicely, PipeSmoker, I do have a couple of questions/suggestions. I would change how to determine a successful hit with the secondary weapon. Using a "G" result minus the damage rating of the weapon seems counterintuitive to me. I might resolve the attack normally, but add a +2 to succeed.

I would rule that when using two weapons, the primary weapon is held in whichever hand is the favored hand of the wielder and that the primary weapon is the larger of the two (if applicable). The secondary weapon is wielded in the user's off-hand.

As to where such a cultural virtue might be found, I suggest the Avari for the Elves and, for Men, the Haradrim or the Corsairs of Umbar (who might even practice gladatorial combat).