dual wield

[Maliki]

That is a nice rule, quick and easy just the way I like rules.

My thoughts exactly (I found it in a homebrewed system someone posted several years ago).

I like it because it eliminates the need to track penalties for primary and off=hand attacks plus the modifiers for dexterity. Also, since the off-hand attack only comes into play if the first attack misses it keeps damage from getting out of hand,

[Joe the Rat]

Since BFRPG doesn't have official multiple attacks, that keeps the dual wield from getting crazy damage, or more relevant, allowing multiple targets. This also gives your dirtier fighters (and thieves) the option to use an empty off-hand to punch someone. I might - might - consider letting a back-stabbing thief have a second, regular attack if their back stab succeeds, but that may over-balance.

How would you stack this with the single melee opponent +1AC option from Combat Options? Since you don't know you need the 2nd roll until you miss, I'm thinking either 1) you always get that bonus, or 2) you lose the bonus until your next turn. This also lets you decide if you want to go for the back-up strike, or keep your parrying blade ready (and a stronger defense) against a more formidable fencer.

Something else I've been contemplating is using dice shifts for multiple weapons - a single roll, but you increase your damage die by one from two-weapons - based on the "primary." So short sword (1d6) + dagger does 1d8, mace (1d8) + hand axe (or dagger) is 1d10, etc. This keeps the same rough average as a "best of" damage roll (I'll need to fiddle with the hit/miss to see how it stacks against the 2nd hand, 2nd chance approach), increases damage slightly, and keeps a single die in play. Enchantments make this a little trickier - either best of, or average of (round up). One complication here is how this compares with two-handed weapons. This puts your Long and Short blade wielder in the same damage class as your Two-hander, only he doesn't need to disarm entirely to free up a hand - and just about any pairing will be lighter and cheaper than the two-handed weapons. Some sort of counterbalance is needed (like a potentially dex-mediated attack penalty). The inverse - attacking multiple opponents and dealing out smaller damage dice is something I've been mulling over for Fighters (in lieu of multiple attacks), though mostly as a thought exercise and exploration in design.

[Solomoriah]

I use the Combat Options more or less as written; I've liked that particular two-weapon combat rule since I first saw it.

[SmootRK]

I use the Combat Options more or less as written; I've liked that particular two-weapon combat rule since I first saw it.

As do I; never really thought to reinvent the wheel in this department. I suppose other methods have some merits and may even be better, but I don't expect to change.... and as it stands, none of my youthful players have even thought to try dual-wielding (and I am not going to suggest it or deal with it until one of them does so).

[Hywaywolf]

As a thief, I use duel wield with a torch in the left hand as a sort of defensive shield. I like it.

[MedievalMan]

Thinking about duel-wielding I would either use the rule as written in the combat options or use this rule.

When duel-wielding weapons you make a single attack with your primary weapon as normal, if you miss with your primary weapon you may attack the same target with your offhand weapon. Alternately, you can give up the option to make this secondary attack upon missing and instead gain a +1 bonus to AC in melee, or against one specific opponent as long as you wield an offhand weapon.

Something like that, sort of a mash up.

[Joe the Rat]

Thinking about duel-wielding I would either use the rule as written in the combat options or use this rule.

When duel-wielding weapons you make a single attack with your primary weapon as normal, if you miss with your primary weapon you may attack the same target with your offhand weapon. Alternately, you can give up the option to make this secondary attack upon missing and instead gain a +1 bonus to AC as long as you wield a offhand weapon.

Something like that, sort of a mash up.

+1 to AC in melee, or against one specific opponent. Otherwise the second weapon is the same as a shield, plus it gives a back-up attack.

[SmootRK]

Yes, One Specific Melee Opponent ONLY.... otherwise, why would someone choose to hold something so useless as a shield.

[MedievalMan]

Alright I will add that clarification in.