Ye Olde Inn

I know it's not exactly a new rule, but no one has made a thread solely devoted to it and I've been mulling it around in my head for quite some time and want to get some feedback on what I have going so far. You know see it is worth putting into rules speak.
1.) All heroes can dual wield, even the wizard (though this would be a horrible idea)
2.) Only the dagger and short sword can be used in a hero's off hand. (and the EU hatchet if you are using it.)
3.) Obviously, if using a off hand weapon then a shield cannot be used. (I had to add this as a munchkin friend of mine complained that it wasn't obvious.)
4.) Due to the reckless nature of the attack, when dual wielding the hero looses 1 defense die. (Can take the hero to 1 defense die if no armor is worn. Thus the reason that the wizard would not like to do this.)
5.) Each weapon can be used to attack different monsters, or the same monster. If both weapons are used against the same monster the monster only gets one defense roll but can use unused shields from the first weapon to defend against the second weapon.

Side notes.
a.) If using the Orc's Bane (in either hand) you would end up with a third attack if the orc's bane is used against only orcs. The other weapon can be used against any monster you choose. (Again if you are having poor rolls and that pesky orc had a good one, he doesn't get another one until a new turn starts regardless of how many times you attack him.)
b.) If using the Heroic Brew you would end up doubling your total number of attacks. (Thus being able to get 6 in if using the orcs bane and surrounded by orcs.)
c.) The gargoyle can now have 2 attacks of 2 dice each, one sword and one whip, and will not loose any of his 5 defense dice because these loss of dice is already included.

Hit me with your suggestions, comments, or bad jokes.

-SadKitchen

These are really great ideas and you keep it simple and basic.
There is - and I emphasize that - nothing to complain or improve about that rule.
That's my feedback at first reading.

I like it. Seems simple enough, a little broken with the heroic brew, but would make for an awesome cinematic moment. I think Ill borrow it, but in order to use it my players would have to purchase training in it first (trying to come up with money sinks, as my monsters randomly drop loot).

I'm glad you guys like it. I have a few ideas for new items that may work well with this.

Spiked Shield
250 Gold Coins
Weapon and Armor
This hand-held armor gives you 1 extra combat die in defense. In addition the spikes on it give you the off hand attack strength of 1 combat die. May not be used with the Battle Axe or the Staff. May not be used by the Wizard. Normal dual wielding penalties still apply.

Twin fighting blades
500 Gold Coins
Weapons
These matched blades are wielded on in a hand giving you two attacks with the attack strength of 2 combat dice, but do not cause the normal dual wielding penalty to your defense dice. You may not use a shield when using these weapons. May not be used by the Wizard.

Side note: If you are using broken weapon rules, if one blade is broken the other becomes a vanilla short sword as they are crafted in pairs and repairing it isn't worth the gold coins.

Let me know what you think.

-SadKitchen

Allways good with simple rules, and you have managed to pull these of nicely. Also the spiked shield and the fighting blades has a nice synergy with the rules.

There is only one thing I have a slight trifle with...

sadkitchen wrote:Due to the reckless nature of the attack, when dual wielding the hero looses 1 defense die.

Now, this is of course a matter of personal preference, but I dont think it should be harder to defend with two weapons than with a two-handed weapon. For my dual wielding rules I went down the Baldurs Gate 2 road and made it harder to use both weapons instead. This makes the damage output slightly better than a single weapon and makes the advantage of dual wielding that you have the option of dividing your attacks. So, shield = best defence, dual wielding = flexible, two handed = most damage.

But that's just a tweek. Your rules are good as they are

I made the dual wielding cost a defense die because costing attack dice would make double daggers nonuseful.
Other than that your idea sounds super awesome.

-SadKitchen

Daria wrote:I like it. Seems simple enough, a little broken with the heroic brew, but would make for an awesome cinematic moment. I think Ill borrow it, but in order to use it my players would have to purchase training in it first (trying to come up with money sinks, as my monsters randomly drop loot).

I think the Heroic Brew issue could be helped by taking the card a bit more literally. "If you drink its contents before you attack, you can make two attacks instead of one. This may only be used once." The card only increases one attack, nothing is mentioned about multiple attacks (Heroes are assumed to only have one attack). Dual-wielding adds one attack beyond the scope of this card. Start with 1 attack, add 1 Heroic Brew attack as described, then add 1 dual-wield attack for 3 attacks. Orc's Bane would also add just 1 attack against at least one Orc for the same reason, for a total of 4 attacks. Still plenty of action there, but a bit more balanced in my opinion.

I also have had a thought or two about dual-weilding and its training cost. The Hero must of course purchase or otherwise aquire the weapons. To account for the extra training needed to wield them effectively together, I say pay the cost of each weapon (or equivalent for artifacts) a second time. Two Daggers (50 gold coins in my game) costs only 200 gold coins total to dual-wield. A Broadsword and a Shortsword cost 800 gold coins.

My vampire pledge at the Bones Kickstarter project contains a cool miniature that holds both a Battle Axe and Broadsword. That's a crazy 6 Attack Dice the way I would count it (the Battle Axe uses only 3 in one hand). It would cost 1,400 gold coins, 1,600 gold coins if the Uber-Hero went with a Longsword and Battle Axe instead. How's that for a money drain? A Hero could optimize better with two Broadswords at a cost of just 1000 gold coins (maybe this one feels too low). However, if you wanna go there, you'll need some tougher monsters. Not everyone's cup of ale.

If I go with dual-wielding and bigger weapons, I think I'll include a strength limit. First, halve a character's Body Points, rounded up. That is the most Attack Dice allowed for a weapon that the Hero can wield. Using just one hand to weild a two-handed weapon that can't be used with a Shield would reduce a Hero's effective strength limit by one for this purpose. Dual-wielding would also reduce the effective strength of the second attack by one, as well. So a Barbarian with 8 BP could weild a Battle Axe in one hand, but with just 3 Attack Dice. The Amulet of the North artifact would increase his BP to 10 and his strength to 5, allowing him to use all 4 Attack Dice of a Battle Axe in one hand. Dual-weilding with a Battle Axe and Broadsword would dish out a massive 7 Attack Dice. Bring on the Dragon!

Well, looking back at my designs I see I have run rough-shod through SadKitchen's more sober rules. I just think there are some fun possibilities in stretching the game (maybe too far). I like the rules of the OP as well, but I'm with Templar on penalizing the attack over the defense. Does this apply to both, or just one of the attacks, I wonder? In the case of Daggers, maybe have the penalized Dagger(s) hit on White Shields instead. Other weapons could then take the 1 Attack Die penalty as normal.

Daedalus wrote:...penalizing the attack over the defense. Does this apply to both, or just one of the attacks, I wonder? In the case of Daggers, maybe have the penalized Dagger(s) hit on White Shields instead. Other weapons could then take the 1 Attack Die penalty as normal.

You are very close here, seems like great minds think alike

I have not playtested it yet, but my rule says that when dual wielding, only counts as hits. In addition you have to designate the main weapon and the off-hand weapon. The off hand weapon is penalized further with 1 less combat die. Only weapons that allows the use of a shield may be used in this manner.

I have done some calculating, and at first the only real advantage of dualwielding is that you have the option of dividing your attacks. A european dagger has two attack dice, and so a player would avarage one hit. With dual wielding, you get 2/3 hits from the main weapon and 1/3 from the off weapon = 2/3 + 1/3 = 1 hit on avarage...

Then when you get to the sword, with three dice, you would normally avarage 1.5 hits. Dual wielding swords gives you 3/3 + 2/3 = 5/3 = 1.67 hits on avarage. So you do more damage on avarage AND can divide your attacks...pretty nice

I should say however, that this type of rule is in principle too complicated for my taste. Dual wielding is only in my advanced rules, and only my Duallist hero may actually do it. (I picture him with a flail and a longsword )

For normal, simpler dual wielding for everyone except mages, with rules that can fit on a card, I've made this:

This has so far filled the role of dual wielding satisfactory with my gaming group. There is one guy who wanted more though, whitch is why I thought of the rules above.

I see the merit of the hit on white shield idea.

My dual wielding came about as I am creating a quest book from a computer game I played as a kid (first rpg ever) and it allowed dual wielding.
The only disadvantage I ever noticed is that the one character that I had doing it didn't seem to dodge as often. (Which is why I took away a defense die)

Probably there was no disadvantage other than not using a shield but we have to try and keep our home rules a little balanced or we would see every character dual wielding battle axes and casting genies on the monsters just a little out of their charging range of 20 squares (just a little exaggeration )

May I ask why your parrying weapon allows the re-roll of attack rolls? Shouldn't it re-roll defense rolls?

-SadKitchen

The subject of dual wielding came up once during a game I was playing with some regulars. The thought struck me enough that I included it in my advancement rules. It only applies to the Barbarian and Elf characters, however. It was simple and satisfied my group. I had taken some consideration to revisit the thought, but decided that any other extrapolation of it, would simply complicate it, so I left it as is.

However, I do enjoy seeing what you guys are doing here. Cheers!