Two weapon fighting

[Ogre]

Its two different approaches. Ogre is using two handed weapons as a weapon and a shield. For me, if thats what you want then just use a shield.

No I'm not.

Two handed weapons do more damage, shields are shields, an extra hand weapon allows you greater likely hood of getting a hit in, and as an added bonus you choose which weapon hits.

But I definitely understand the argument that two weapons fighting should feel like two attacks, I think people are wanting to envision their character beheading two goblins like a whirling dervish, you want that imagery with a dual wielding fighter.

So I am still debating on how I want to approach it for my games.

Right now rules as written still seems the best, but it's not quite right for what I want, as I feel it's a poor choice for low level characters and an obvious choice for high level characters.

Maliki and Midieval mans option is interesting as well, as unlike mine it denotes which weapon hits for you, which is an added bonus mine lacks.

[Solomoriah]

The one in Combat Options. (i.e. the one I wrote.)

Thats the one I would like if I was playing at higher levels and I wanted to wade through some pesky goblins. At first level its really not very useful unless you like whiffing a lot.

I'll have you know that John Northcrosse, at the time a level 1 fighter, plowed through a bunch of desert tribesmen with a longsword and dagger... and killed most of them with the dagger. One of my favorite characters. He did have a pretty good Strength, and of course a good Dexterity. Would've been stupid to go two weapon otherwise.

Which is part of why I use that rule, just that way. Most fighters trying to go two weapon will end up looking like fools, while some will rock the house. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel like that is a good model for the game. Remember, traditional metal-armored medieval warriors of this world didn't do that all that often; shields were more useful in the off hand than daggers or shortswords or whatever.

That's the silliest train of thought ever, if that was true you would be playing AD&D 1st ed and not BFRPG.

Wow, no kidding about being confrontational.

I had a tremendous amount of respect for Gary; he and I interacted online a few times, and it was always enjoyable. Remember, before he wrote 1E, he wrote the classic game, the root of the whole tree. There are worse people to mimic.

My best memories are of BX, though, and between Moldvay and Cook, I preferred Moldvay's approach to the game. It just happens that Gary's two weapon combat rule plugs in nicely to a Moldvay-style game.

[Hywaywolf]

i'm sorry Ogre, I think I morphed yours and shadowmane's post into one when I was thinking about my reply.

[Ogre]

That's the silliest train of thought ever, if that was true you would be playing AD&D 1st ed and not BFRPG.

Wow, no kidding about being confrontational.

I had a tremendous amount of respect for Gary; he and I interacted online a few times, and it was always enjoyable. Remember, before he wrote 1E, he wrote the classic game, the root of the whole tree. There are worse people to mimic.

My best memories are of BX, though, and between Moldvay and Cook, I preferred Moldvay's approach to the game. It just happens that Gary's two weapon combat rule plugs in nicely to a Moldvay-style game.

Sorry, I regretted that as soon as I posted it, and I went back to edit it, but not fast enough apparently.

I do get tired of the idea that some old school gamers have in their mindsets that everything Gary put out is above criticism. It also bothers me that Arneson gets so little attention, for no real valid reason from what I can gather.

besides, rules variants don't have a best, they just have a works best for you.

But regardless I think my comment is still accurate, if there wasn't room for improvement(subjective improvement anyway), you wouldn't have started work on BFRPG in the first place.

[Solomoriah]

Yeah, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of Arneson's Blackmoor. I have a copy of FIrst Fantasy Campaign and everything.

[Dimirag]

Actually, Ogre's idea isn't bad and its quite simple, how about expanding it?
To Weapon Fighting: Using a weapon on the off-hand allows the attacker to add a +1 to his attack roll or a +1 to his damage roll, the player must announce which option is using before the attack is made.
If the players opts for fighting defensively then he adds an extra +1 to his AC.

This way no character gets an extra attack, which can be a really powerful thing...

[Hywaywolf]

I don't understand why you would even use two weapon fighting if you don't want players to have an opportunity for two attacks. Just leave it out of your game.

[SmootRK]

I don't understand why you would even use two weapon fighting if you don't want players to have an opportunity for two attacks. Just leave it out of your game.

Having multiple attacks is logical and would be more like how monsters get additional attacks. But, I don't see a major problem with each round's events being considered as an "Attack Routine" with just one roll to hit. We are talking about just another abstraction, just as AC is an abstraction of Armor, Dexterity, Parrying, etc. or HP is an abstraction of endurance, bodily health, skill, etc.

That said, I am leaning towards something where each weapon gives an attack and damage. My gut says it should be a heavier penalty, or a steep penalty that can be off-set by one's Dexterity bonus... which is why two weapon fighters tend to be dextrous fighters rather than the brutish sorts.

[Dimirag]

Because its better to allow a player to use two weapons at the same time without giving him extra attacks that just say "no, you can't hold a weapon in each hand, you must drop one".

[Hywaywolf]

I can understand that except for saying they can't hold two weapons or that they "must" drop one. My pet peeve is DM's telling me my PC CAN'T do something that is obviously possible to do. Tell me that it doesn't give me a bonus or that its actually gives me a penalty, yeah, no problem. But if you tell me I can't hold a weapon in my off hand I have to wonder if I have somehow lost my hand.