Dealing with 2 weapon combo in combat system

[Christoffer Lernö]

I'm trying to figure out how to deal with the usage of 2 weapons in combination in my combat system.

The main engine of the combat system is all worked out, I'm running a tweaked AHQ combat system.

A quick example on AHQ first:
I have Weapon Skill 8 my opponent has 6.

I then need to roll 5+ on a D12 to hit my opponent and he has to roll 9+. 12 gives you a hit and an additional attack roll (if that one is 12 as well you get yet another one and so on)

A 1 is a fumble and gives your opponent a free attack.

After hitting you roll damage but there's no need to get into that.

Adapting this system and tweaking it is easy, but I have some troubles with the 2 weapon combo system.

Many games simply add an additional attack roll (with or without extra modifiers), which is simple and maybe fun (but a little unfair to players with only one weapon). It's not very realistic though.

Another approach would be to be able to choose "attacking" or "defending" stance and get +1 or +2 to either attackroll or defense rating. This is a little involved and not very intuitive. It simulates the situation in certain cases but not in all. It doesn't seem to add much to the enjoyment of the game either.

A third approach would be to leave it without any bonuses and a single attack roll, then maybe add an option for trained persons to make a "grab" type of attack against an opponent's weapon as a bonus. Because the game also has some simple rules to keep track of weapon range using weapon combos with different length of weapons could be advantageous.

A fourth approach, compatible with the one mentioned above would be to manipulate the ranges for criticals/fumbles of the attacker and/or the defender. For example a realistic simulation of 2H weapon vs 2 Weapon combo would be to give the 2H weapon a bigger fumble range.
Still, I don't want to make specific rules for certain combos. I need to hit somewhere in between so that while the rules might not accurately describe every situation, it should be equally inaccurate ;)

Any suggestions? What way do you like it best?

[Matt Steflik]

I'm trying to figure out how to deal with the usage of 2 weapons in combination in my combat system.

The main engine of the combat system is all worked out, I'm running a tweaked AHQ combat system.

A quick example on AHQ first:
I have Weapon Skill 8 my opponent has 6.

I then need to roll 5+ on a D12 to hit my opponent and he has to roll 9+. 12 gives you a hit and an additional attack roll (if that one is 12 as well you get yet another one and so on)

OK.  So you need to roll equal or higher than one less than your opponent's weapon skill on 1d12, right?  Another easy way you could represent this is to treat the two weapon attack as two attacks (as per your first option), but raise the TN...say, one -more- than your opponent's weapon skill.  To use your example above (if you were both using two weapons), if you get a 7 or higher on two 1d12 rolls, both weapons hit.  If your opponent gets a 9 or higher on two 1d12 rolls, both weapons hit.

A 1 is a fumble and gives your opponent a free attack.

A fourth approach, compatible with the one mentioned above would be to manipulate the ranges for criticals/fumbles of the attacker and/or the defender. For example a realistic simulation of 2H weapon vs 2 Weapon combo would be to give the 2H weapon a bigger fumble range.

To tie in with my suggestion above, you could represent this by fumbling on a roll of 1 or 2 when using two weapons.

[Mike Holmes]

Having a weapon in each hand is an advantage over just having one? I wonder why nobody ever told me this? ;-)

In fact, I'm fairly certain it's not true. Historically, warriors who had the option of weilding two weapons often did not in favor of using just one. Amongst Knights, Samurai, whomever, some fought with one weapon, some with two. It certainly has no special advantage over an opponent with a weapon and shield (which is effective and easy, hence its popualrity, historically, amongst the ill-trained as well as the well-trained). Oh, occasionally two weapons might allow for greater versatility in angle of attack or something, or a shorter distance to a parry, and it might be intimidating under certain circumstances. But nothing reliable.

It certainly does not make the user any faster. Any attempt to make two attacks simultaneously is difficult, and detracts from both as well as defense. Unless one is highly skilled. But that can be said of any single or combination of weapons used. I'd probably just ignore effects in a Sim game (though I'd definitely require a special skill to use it).

As a Gamist element, I'd probably go for that 11, 12 extra attack, 1,2, fumble. And there are other advantages to having two weapons, like having a spare if one is dropped or broken.

$.02,
Mike

[Bankuei]

From a historical point of view, 2 weapons fighting usually developed only in areas with heavy jungle foilage(Phillipines, Indonesia) and typically used weapons no larger than shortswords or machetes.  Due to the heat, few people wore armor, so it was better to just get in close and slash the crap out of your opponents.  In this case, yes, two weapons were significantly better than one.  

On the other hand, in field war, one weapon was typically larger for better reach and heavier to cut through armor.  You also did not need to really train your soldiers as much in order for them to wield one weapon.

Incidentally, most systems that train two weapons also use the same motions for several types of weapons(knives, short swords, clubs) and barehands, thereby training you in all things short and light at one time :)  Of course, these fighters were not trained for field warfare, but small encounters of up to 3 or more people attacking one.  

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Good points Chris. Knights using two weapons were usually just using one weapon at a time, essentially (sometimes it's easier not to have to turn as much in heavy armor).

And people will obviously point out the Florentine style, so before that happens, let me address it. Florentine (rapier and Main-gauche) was a fencing style and not even thought at the time to have a significant advantage over other styles. The one advantage you did have was the ability to bind your opponents weapon, and then attack him unable to parry. However, this is offset by the fact that the Florentine fighter has to fight presented (as opposed to the denied fencing stance) which alows the single weapon foe an advantage in target area (often he'd be hit before he even got close enough for the bind).

If there was a slight advantage, it is situational. The Florentine fencer would still probably be at a disadvantage against a halbardier (of equal skill; skilled halbard use is an odd sight), for example. So, unless you want to list all weapons and weapon combinations, and how they react to each other, I think that this is best left to the descriptive devices of the players and GM. It does argue for making two different skills for fencing as a sport, and rapier fighting in battle, however. If one were to take such a weapon in to fight against armored foes.

As always, considerations of skill are probably more important than anything else in such calculations. A really good knife fighter will make short work of a poorly trained Halbardier. And if you want to be really realistic, nothing replaces actual combat experience. The untrained knife fighter will probably get the better of the highly skilled halbardier if he has actual combat experience.

Sorry, got a little ranty rambly there,
Mike

[Bankuei]

Good points Mike.  I had just checked out the Riddle of Steel thread and the ARMA link which had gotten me in a simmy mood.  For more info on two weapon styles of Asia and the Pacific Islands, some great  sources would be Filipino Martial Culture by Mark Wiley, Arnis: Reflections on the History and Development of the Filipino Martial Arts, by the same author, Ancient Chinese Weapons, by Dr. Jwing-Ming Wang, and The Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia by Donn Draeger.  

Incidentally, the style of Silat I study also teaches "3 weapon" fighting, with specialized daggers that were held between the toes of a foot to be used against the Dutch(extra reach vs. bayonets).  :)  Although I wouldn't think it to be the most effective choice outside of that situation :)

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Incidentally, the style of Silat I study also teaches "3 weapon" fighting, with specialized daggers that were held between the toes of a foot to be used against the Dutch(extra reach vs. bayonets).  :)

Get out. That's an April fools joke, last minute, right?

Well, again, situation. Interestingly, most styles are developed as a counter to a previous style of fighting. An attempt to get the upper hand.  The problem becomes the difficulty of training more and more exotic styles.

Guns are only effective weapons because of their ease of use, not because of any particular killing power. An effective sword blow is way more lethal than the average bullet wound. Just a lot harder to score.

Mike

[Christoffer Lernö]

Sounds like you agree that I can get away with not treating them any different from any other type of attacks. I'm used to seeing games with all sorts of elaborate rules for 2 weapon combos, but it's nothing I really want. But I was thinking, maybe people are expecting two attacks or whatever so maybe I should add it.

But now I won't. That's a relief. Thanks ;)

[Mike Holmes]

Sounds like you agree that I can get away with not treating them any different from any other type of attacks. I'm used to seeing games with all sorts of elaborate rules for 2 weapon combos, but it's nothing I really want. But I was thinking, maybe people are expecting two attacks or whatever so maybe I should add it.

But now I won't. That's a relief. Thanks ;)

Now I feel that I have to add a caveat. If your game is what we refer to as a Gamist game, then I do highly advocate having special rules for two weapons. It's the kind of thing that enhances a Gamist game. That is assuming that you don't mind it being "Non-realistic". Also, if your mood and color and setiting are such, perhaps you should allow two attacks as well.

The point is that it's hard to know what to sugges without knowing more of your design intent. What sort of a game are you making?

Mike

[Bankuei]

Here's my recommendation:  Don't roll twice, I'd just give a different bonus as the result.  In most games, its really a matter of "did you hurt them and how much?"  

In reality, a knife fighter is just as deadly as a man with a two handed sword, simply because it really doesn't matter if you've been cleft from head to toe or hamstringed with your eyes gouged and both carotid arteries sliced, either way, you're dead.  Rolling for each attack is also fairly senseless because the two weapon style is always based on multiple attacks, continous combos that don't let up, and a lot of preliminary blows that disable, disarm, check, or slash your weapon arms before going to more vital locations.  

In some games, such as the Palladium games, they attempted to give everyone multiple attacks to simulate combat, but again, it's quite unrealistic and unplayable in the end.  An average escrimador is putting out 2-3 slashes a second, on the most basic combos.  Anyone will tell you, someone can get a good hit in, but its a general feeling of flow and domination.  Perception, aggressiveness, and coolheadness play as much of a role as technique, and being able to adapt to whatever your foe throws at you is the true measure of skill.

Basically, if you decide to give bonuses, decide what really is being measured, why you're giving it, and let the players know what is being measured.  If a player has a high skill level, you might want to give them information their character would know,"...If he gets in close, you're in trouble...".  Tactics and general ideas work far better than a fat list of techniques or styles.

Chris

[Christoffer Lernö]

Now I feel that I have to add a caveat. If your game is what we refer to as a Gamist game, then I do highly advocate having special rules for two weapons. It's the kind of thing that enhances a Gamist game. That is assuming that you don't mind it being "Non-realistic".

I think my game can be considered a Gamist game yes. So I'm willing to give up on realism (but not an unlimited amount) to make a game more fun to play.

And that's why I even consider adding putting in rules like two attacks. But I was struck by a disadvantage in adding such things, even from a gamist view. Although it makes it different and more interesting to play two weapons rather than one, the advantage might be too great. So in effect I'm actually making the mechanics less fun for people who AREN'T using 2 weapons because they get a disadvantage in comparison.

Of course it can be balanced by adding to-hit penalties to the attacking rolls of the two-weapon wielding characters (this kind of rule is not unusual to find in many systems which employ two rolls).
But that kind of works against the main principle of my design which is trying to keep the system simple and as low as possible on modifiers and such.

[Lance D. Allen]

Well, here's a different idea, then...

Perhaps just have the damage be 1.5x the normal damage of a single weapon (if both are the same.. just add 1/2 the second weapon's damage to the total damage if it's separate weapons) and apply a penalty to the overall roll.
As a secondary idea, to reflect specialized training, make 2-weapon variants of the combat skills available, which will negate the penalty when fighting with two weapons, but add a penalty if the character is fighting with only a single weapon.

My 2 copper marks worth (legal tender in any of the regions of Tuathinsul)

[Mike Holmes]

And that's why I even consider adding putting in rules like two attacks. But I was struck by a disadvantage in adding such things, even from a gamist view. Although it makes it different and more interesting to play two weapons rather than one, the advantage might be too great. So in effect I'm actually making the mechanics less fun for people who AREN'T using 2 weapons because they get a disadvantage in comparison.

Excellent analysis. Yes, this is a big problem. From a balance POV, such cahracters are at such a decided advantage that everyone will take a two weapon guy. So what do you do?

Of course it can be balanced by adding to-hit penalties to the attacking rolls of the two-weapon wielding characters (this kind of rule is not unusual to find in many systems which employ two rolls).
But that kind of works against the main principle of my design which is trying to keep the system simple and as low as possible on modifiers and such.

The to-hit penalties miss the mark (an I've sseen them in a lot of games, RM off the top). If I reduce my chance to hit from 70 to 50 percent, but get to attack twice, I'll take it evey time. The expected value of damage is still higher over time with the two attacks.

A common idea is to simply make it expensive to purchase, somehow. Like requiring extra skills be purchased. While this does help a little, it still leaves the problem that the focused character has a higher potential effectiveness. So people will still take this option. This is known in Hero System (Champions) as hitting the Active Point limit, or the rule of X. essentially, two attacks would allow you to break that cieling.

So, again, perhaps, the more realistic thing is the more balanced thing, here. No specific advantage. Just situational ones. Which the GM can balance by presentation.

The other option is to allow for single weapon players to somehow spend on increasing their ability to score damage with their weapons to compensate. This could be interesting if you could find balancing enhancements, but ones with different effects. Perhaps two weapons is better against unarmored foes, but Big Chop attacks with single weapons are better for killing big, and or armored stuff.

Something like that. See D&D Feats.

Mike

[Jake Norwood]

The advantages to 2-weapon combos are many, but not neccessarily overpowering. The other problem is that for the real-life advantages of 2-weapon styles (at least European ones...I don't know too much about asian styles in all honesty) require a totally different structure from what most RPGs supply.

In my experience as a WMA practicioner (ranked Free-Scholar) two-weapon combos allow you to:

-Bind or deflect with one and attack with the other
-Attack at different ranges (both medium and close, generally, as long-ranged weapons, such as greatswords, require two hands for balance...not weight).
-Throw something at an opponent to distract him
-Fight multiple opponents with more confidence and more options.
-Improve overall defence to both sides of your body without having to sacrifice too much in the way of offense.

In short, 2-weapon styles give you options. That should therefore be reflected in whatever system is being used. Several games have attempted this to various degrees of success (7th Sea is one of the better ones, D&D perhaps the worst, though a feat-based mechanic could improve that, though as far as I'm aware it currently doesn't). Extra attacks are NOT the way to go if you want to keep with the real uses of European paired weapons.

A good place to look for info would be the SwordForum (www.swordforum.com) or the ARMA forum (www.thearma.org), both of which are frequented by serious WMA practicioners that have real experience with these combos (again, assuming you're talking European stuff here).

As a final shameless plug, The Riddle of Steel (www.theriddleofsteel.com) handles this very well, as the combat system was largely built around it.

Jake Norwood
Driftwood Publishing
www.theriddleofsteel.com

[Brian Hose]

Hi,
Hey Pale, I'd just like to chime in with a quick idea.  Wolfen makes a good idea about damage increase, I've seen this in other games and its always struck me as pretty cool.

My thought is a variation on this: how about an improvement in the attack roll?  And I'll tell you why.

Going back to Mike's post of tuesday, April 2, 4:39 (est) and the florentine style.  My information is that the style developed to overcome handy-caps in the basic weapon style.  Most people see the rapier as a light (but cool) toy, something like a modern fencing foil.  But it wasn't, they could be heavy mothers, some had blades nearing five feet in length.  Before you scoff, in my experience there is nothing so absurd that human beings won't try it (especially if it leaves the other guy expiring messily on the floor).  Anyway after thrusting or lunging with one of these monster pig-stickers recovering and moving into a parry took too much time - you miss, you're dead.  So, why not have another weapon to protect yourself?  After all, not everyone use the main-guache, some used, lanterns, cloaks and targets (in the traditional sense).  

Getting back to rules: every fighter moves back and forward between defence and offence, the purpose of a shield and a second weapon is the same - to make the fighter's defence more secure so that they can spend more time on the offence.

Anywho, I hope you found that interesting if nothing else.

May the schwartz be with you,
Brian.