dual wielding

[SirRick]

I don't think I would normally allow dual wielding in most cases. Mainly because the rule of only defending once per creature.

The rule itself is pretty stupid. Technically a normal hero could use a heroic brew, attack once, then drink a bunch of Strength potions (while the monster stands around waiting) to use on the second attack for tons of automatic damage. Fortunately this consumes resources and can't be done frequently.

If I allowed dual wielding I would consider something like a Witch Elf. They could use two weapons at the cost of not being able to wear any armor while doing so. A glass cannon of sorts, good as a 2nd or 3rd character in player order.

[mitchiemasha]

I don't think I would normally allow dual wielding in most cases. Mainly because the rule of only defending once per creature.
The rule itself is pretty stupid.

Yeah... that's not a rule in the UK.

What's the original rule again? Just because it applies to one thing or one way, doesn't mean it applies in reverse or another thing.

[mitchiemasha]

I suppose I don't mind the two Attacks but must let the player also gain a Defense Die for it too. A guy with two swords flailing about would thematically make sense for an extra Defense Die.

That might be true but it's supposed to be a trade off.

[benvoliothefirst]

I allowed it with my group, since they all always seem to roll abysmally. Barbarian attacks with four dice: four shields! Barbarian attacks again with two dice: two more shields! It can be painful to watch.

The trade-off: I incorporated the torch/light rules from Warhammer quest. Now at least one person has to be holding a torch in one hand. Anybody want a shield? One less hand for torches. Problem solves itself.

[Tott]

I think a second attack is too much. my approach would be to allow one attack using the first weapons dice, but you can then re-roll the number of dice up to the second weapons value.
i.e. if the main hand weapon had an attack of three, and the off hand an attack of 2 then on your attack you would roll 3 dice and, if you wanted to, you could re-roll up to 2 of them.
that way you're not increasing the size of the attack but you are increasing the consistency.

[Maurice76]

I think a second attack is too much. my approach would be to allow one attack using the first weapons dice, but you can then re-roll the number of dice up to the second weapons value.
i.e. if the main hand weapon had an attack of three, and the off hand an attack of 2 then on your attack you would roll 3 dice and, if you wanted to, you could re-roll up to 2 of them.
that way you're not increasing the size of the attack but you are increasing the consistency.

I like this idea!

[benvoliothefirst]

I think a second attack is too much. my approach would be to allow one attack using the first weapons dice, but you can then re-roll the number of dice up to the second weapons value.
i.e. if the main hand weapon had an attack of three, and the off hand an attack of 2 then on your attack you would roll 3 dice and, if you wanted to, you could re-roll up to 2 of them.
that way you're not increasing the size of the attack but you are increasing the consistency.

Right but mathematically a re-roll is better than an extra attack, because you only re roll the FAILED attack dice. If you have two broadswords, on average you'll roll 1.5 hits on EACH sword. And they can block both attacks. If you re-roll the 1.5 dice that statistically MISS, you're raising the average hits but they don't get to block twice.

Again it depends on that silly "you can't block twice" rule above.

[j_dean80]

What about if you roll your attack dice then BEFORE the defender rolls you decide if you want to discard your entire roll and trade it for one auto BP loss.

[mitchiemasha]

I've spent hours on this one... First off, forget the 'no block twice rule', that is a unique thing tied to a specific (which I forget someone please remind me). 2 attacks isn't too powerful as the user can no longer carry a shield. It is limited to only the short sword (possibly the hand axe etc) 2Ad6, twice, making it weaker than the battle axe 4d6. It's 4d6 the enemy defends twice to or, it's main intention, split attacks, which are weak, compared to the 3d6 of the better sword.

As a hero you have a choice
1 weak attack, shield
2 weak attacks, no shield
1 medium attack, shield
1 strong attack, no shield


The dual wield fits in nicely as an alternative play style, amazing against large weak hordes, infestations, rats, goblins, useless against strong enemies. Especially when combined with other mods such as Fimir, Tail Bash: Free counter attack if not killed when attacked. Depending on the Quest at hand, it would change if you'd equip this way or bring that speciality Hero with you. When a room needs clearing, all swords swinging, but... you'd better stay back and leave those bigger baddies to the other guy. A hero will figure this out before hand or learn it the hard way.

My aim was to bring about the different play styles people like, more in game development choices, with out complication to flow. A hero on first visits to the armoury might forgo the defensive approach, not buying the shield and try dual wielding for a while... or vice versa! It's kind of another step that gets in the way of them reaching max potential. ALSO, don't forget, a bought Short Sword would be Broken when rolling 2 Black Shields, which is more likely to happen when attacking twice every turn. A Broadsword at 3Ad6 is much less likely to break. A battle Axe, likely never, ever rolled 4 Black shields? It's still unlikely when buffed with a potion or spell, unlike the Short Sword, this thing will break often. (Edit Note: start weapons don't break, they're already considered dull, the attack value you default to when your other weapon becomes damaged/broken).

The main advantage of dual wield, in perspective of the game overall, is... It slows down power creep. Quite the opposite of too powerful!

[mitchiemasha]

As a hero trait, speciality skill it could be wrote that they can dual wield all 1 handed weapons... however, this would cost them a Body point as each skill requires 1 Mind point to own the right of the skill.

Barbarian: 8B 2M (1M default + 1M Use of weapons) = 10
Barbarella: 7B 3M (1M default + 1M Use of weapons + 1M Dual wield skill) = 10

Anyone with use of weapons can dual wield a short sword, should they own 2 (it's a trait for that weapon, not a character skill). This might read complicated but at the table it's not, it simply flows, one doesn't have to think about it. Everything perfectly intertwines.