Jump to content
Imryn

House rule: Dual wielding

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Grievous said:

What they can't do - as I pointed out above - is attack and defend at the same time, which is what the dual wielder CAN do, and which is the core of the advantage of using two weapons instead of one.

I'm not sure if you meant "simultaneously" or not, but I'll presume you did.

I always thought the advantage of dual wield is that you don't know which hand will do the parrying, and which will do the attacking... at any time. They don't need to be simultaneous.... this is more obvious when the 2 weapons are of similar length.

Also, in RQ, attacks and parries are done in a melee round... not per second. so, a lot of this talk really changes everything...

 

1 hour ago, Grievous said:

but I would still want to be the 2h sword wielder in this instance in pretty much 100% of the cases.

I saw a video from a western martial artist (swords) teacher who said that if walking into a 1-1 against an unknown opponent with unknown weapons, he'd choose to go with the the (modern European) rapier every time.. hands down! Reach, speed, thrusting point and slashing blade... and since most parries should be deflections, not blocks, still has the strength to withstand most attacks.

Edited by Shiningbrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your feedback @Grievous

I think something that didn't come across clearly in the OP is that I was primarily talking about using weapons in the left hand as the primary weapon and not as an extra weapon.

I think adding a dagger in the left hand while wielding a sword in the right would be just as you describe, but that's not what my house rule was for. I was talking about learning to fight with the weapon in the left hand as the primary weapon with nothing in the right. This is different, and you would have to re learn all the stances, footwork, body positioning etc as it would all be the opposite of what you were used to. In this case I think muscle memory and trained responses would be working against you.

I agree that dual wielding should be a separate skill, and I am working on a revised rule that focuses less on learning to use weapons left handed and more on dual weapon use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After assimilating the excellent feed back my first attempt received, I have taken another stab at creating a house rule for dual wielding:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Rule: Dual Wielding V2

All existing RAW for left hand weapon use stands:

  • Left-hand weapons skills start at 5% or at half right-hand weapons skill (GM’s discretion).
  • Attacks with two weapons takes place as per RAW i.e. sequentially (RH weapon attacks at normal SR, then LH weapon attacks at the combined SR of both weapons, and so forth).
  • Parries take place as normal and the player can choose which weapon is used for each parry.

Dual Wielding:

Dual wielding as an advanced form of fighting with two weapons that can only be learnt by characters who have already mastered the two weapons they wish to dual wield, and which allows them to use the weapons in a combined style.

Dual wielding is a separate skill to normal weapon use, and each different combination of weapons is a separate skill. Trainers in these skills are exceedingly rare, as is research material.

Requirements:

  •  The specific dual wielding skill must be clearly identified (using the format RH weapon / LH weapon)
  • The character must have mastered the two weapons selected (defined as having a 90% + skill level)
  • The character must obtain training in the specific skill to start at 5% + manipulation bonus. This skill cannot be started through experience or research. It can be started through a successful divine intervention roll.

Dual Wielding skill use:

  • Attacks and parries made when fighting with the dual wield skill take place using the LOWER of either the dual wield skill chance or that of each individual weapon.
  • Experience gains can be made based on which skill is used to attack or parry i.e. if the dual wield skill is used it can get a check mark, if the individual weapon skill is used it can get a check mark.
  • When attacking using a dual wield skill the attacks take place simultaneously (not sequentially) and in the order determined by the weapons SR i.e. 1st attack takes place at the SR of the weapon with the lowest SR, 2nd attack takes place at the SR of the other weapon, 3rd attack takes place at double the SR of the first weapon, 4th attack takes place at double the SR of the second weapon , and so forth. If both weapons have the same SR the attacks take place simultaneously.
  • RAW for splitting attacks apply (note that the LOWER of the dual wield skill and the weapon skill is used).
  • RAW for parries apply (note that the LOWER of the dual wield skill and the weapon skill is used).
  • Magic that increases a character’s skill with a weapon functions as normal, however improving a weapon skill does not improve a dual wield skill that includes that weapon. For the purpose of magical enhancement dual wield skills are not classed as weapon skills. The LOWER of the dual wield and the weapon skill is still used for all attacks and parries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this house rule will allow the kind of flowing coordinated action we see in martial arts movies (the good ones, not the garbage), without being overwhelmingly powerful.

Potentially a character could be making about 8 or 10 attacks per round (I think SR 2 is the lowest a 1h weapon gets) but it would be a very long road to get there. Because the lowest skill out of the dual wield skill and the individual weapons is used the player will have to advance 3 skills to improve, and because magic that affects a single weapon doesn’t affect the dual wield skill, it’s going to take a lot of time and effort to get up to the 250% plus needed to max out attacks.

The one situation I haven’t covered is LH weapon and shield. My inclination is to make it a dual wield skill because the LH weapon is the main weapon and not a secondary weapon, however it would have added a lot of complication to the rule and I don’t think it will come up very often – GM’s discretion!

So, what do you think?

Edited by Imryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 2:16 PM, Imryn said:

Simple answer - I created a character and got a geas not to use shields, so I started thinking of alternatives. A two handed weapon is great but compare a greatsword (2d8 damage plus bonus) with two battleaxes (1d8+2, 1d8+2 plus 2 x bonus).

Usually, armor also applies to both battleaxe attacks while it only counts once with a GreatSword, and it is often bigger than damage bonus.

Also, having to develop a skill for each hand is a huge drawback of dual wielding combat when compared to two handed weapons. And with the rules for skills above 100% and multiple parries, it's better to have one skill above 100% than two in the 80-90% range. Even if you're dual wielding, you'd rather attack and parry with your main weapon, and switch for the one in your off hand if the main one is damaged.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Usually, armor also applies to both battleaxe attacks while it only counts once with a GreatSword, and it is often bigger than damage bonus.

Also, having to develop a skill for each hand is a huge drawback of dual wielding combat when compared to two handed weapons. And with the rules for skills above 100% and multiple parries, it's better to have one skill above 100% than two in the 80-90% range. Even if you're dual wielding, you'd rather attack and parry with your main weapon, and switch for the one in your off hand if the main one is damaged.

Greatsword 2d8 plus bonus (say its 1d6) gives 3 - 22 pts of damage. Assume 6 pts of armour, on average 6.5 pts of damage gets through; max is 15.5 pts.

Battleaxe 1d8+2+1d6 gives 4 - 16 pts damage, assume 6 pts of armour, on average 4 pts gets through; max is 10 pts. Double that for 2 axes gives average 8, max 20.

The rules for multiple parries have no effect, except with 2 weapons I can choose which to use, and if one breaks i still have one left. Greatsword can take 12 hp damage, battleaxe can take 8 so my two weapons can take more damage before I am disarmed. If your main weapon was enchanted and had spell matrices on it etc you should be very wary about letting it get damaged because if it breaks you have to start again from scratch.

The only thing I agree with is that it is a pain to develop two skills, but anything that is useful should require effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Imryn said:

Greatsword 2d8 plus bonus (say its 1d6) gives 3 - 22 pts of damage. Assume 6 pts of armour, on average 6.5 pts of damage gets through; max is 15.5 pts.

Battleaxe 1d8+2+1d6 gives 4 - 16 pts damage, assume 6 pts of armour, on average 4 pts gets through; max is 10 pts. Double that for 2 axes gives average 8, max 20.

I admit I underestimated the impact of the +2 bonus.

Still, you need to hit with both weapon to deal that amount of damage, and it's easier with one skill of 100% than two of 80%. :)

59 minutes ago, Imryn said:

The rules for multiple parries have no effect, except with 2 weapons I can choose which to use, and if one breaks i still have one left.

The multiple parry rule means you can completely avoid to parry with your second hand if you want, contrarily to previous versions of the game.

Trying to have similar skills in both hands instead of concentrating your efforts on your main hand is a very dangerous strategy. If you're afraid of breaking a weapon with matrices, you can still use it in your main hand.

59 minutes ago, Imryn said:

Greatsword can take 12 hp damage, battleaxe can take 8 so my two weapons can take more damage before I am disarmed.

It's not easy to compare the 12 points of a GreatSword and the 8x2 points of 2 axes, because it depends a lot on the number of parried hits that exceed 12 or 8 points, respectively, and the possible critical or special parries or attacks.

Also, 12 points means 4 less damage upon a successful parry.

Edited by Mugen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mugen I think between us we have pretty thoroughly covered all of the pluses and minuses of using two weapons, but do you have any feed back for my house rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dual wielding can only be started through Divine Intervention? Your Glorantha surely does vary from mine.

In my Glorantha, there is an Esrolian fencing style (originally from Rhigos) using two (Bronze Age) rapiers, taught by sword masters of the cult of Humakt, and by some sword sages of Nochet, too (who are the ones producing the research literature on this style). The style was developed for judicial duels rather than for battles, but may find application outside of the dueling courts nonetheless. There are gladiatorial uses for this style, too, but then judicial duels double as a form of entertainment anyway.

RQG has no combat styles as separate skills, which is why I use separate skills for right hand and left hand attack.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joerg said:

Dual wielding can only be started through Divine Intervention? Your Glorantha surely does vary from mine.

In my Glorantha, there is an Esrolian fencing style (originally from Rhigos) using two (Bronze Age) rapiers, taught by sword masters of the cult of Humakt, and by some sword sages of Nochet, too (who are the ones producing the research literature on this style). The style was developed for judicial duels rather than for battles, but may find application outside of the dueling courts nonetheless. There are gladiatorial uses for this style, too, but then judicial duels double as a form of entertainment anyway.

RQG has no combat styles as separate skills, which is why I use separate skills for right hand and left hand attack.

 

21 hours ago, Imryn said:

....

Dual wielding is a separate skill to normal weapon use, and each different combination of weapons is a separate skill. Trainers in these skills are exceedingly rare, as is research

....

  • The character must obtain training in the specific skill to start at 5% + manipulation bonus. This skill cannot be started through experience or research. It can be started through a successful divine intervention roll.

.....

It can be started either through training or through divine intervention. The difficulty in finding a trainer is up to the GM. Due to the high starting requirements for dual wielding skills most characters will be Rune Lords (or close) by the time they meet them, and I assume that the DI option will be used if the GM doesn't want to sidetrack the campaign with a "hunt the trainer" session.

I like the idea of having certain weapon combinations being associated with specific temples or cults. It gives the players a place to start their search for a trainer and provides obvious hooks for quests etc.

Combining both points, it would be great if the players had to hunt down a trainer if they wanted to start a "known" dual wielding skill, and use DI if they wanted to start a completely new and unknown skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree (strongly) with the notion that you need to be a weapons master to develop that skill.

Your way of taking the Martial Arts rules for dual wield would work if there was something more to the skill that just being allowed to use the RAW for attacking with either hand. Like controlling the opponent's weapon to hinder (or even prevent) his parry as an action for both weapons (allowing just one attack).

7 minutes ago, Imryn said:

It can be started either through training or through divine intervention. The difficulty in finding a trainer is up to the GM. Due to the high starting requirements for dual wielding skills most characters will be Rune Lords (or close) by the time they meet them, and I assume that the DI option will be used if the GM doesn't want to sidetrack the campaign with a "hunt the trainer" session.

Basically as a gift, although I think that a 5% skill for a DI is a lousy "reward".

Rather than DI, you could rather go on a heroquest to Kargan Tor's court of weapons and participate there. Trainers found, but you have to prove your mettle first.

7 minutes ago, Imryn said:

I like the idea of having certain weapon combinations being associated with specific temples or cults. It gives the players a place to start their search for a trainer and provides obvious hooks for quests etc.

It should be possible to do this via a low level heroquest. I seem to recall a magazine-published write-up of a heroquest to Kargan Tor's court of weapons, and I would build upon that. (IIRC Tales, probably #5, the Humakt issue)

7 minutes ago, Imryn said:

Combining both points, it would be great if the players had to hunt down a trainer if they wanted to start a "known" dual wielding skill, and use DI if they wanted to start a completely new and unknown skill.

To be honest, I dislike the DI option, although you seem to be thinking in "Rune Lords only" terms here.

Your proposal with the additional skill needs some clarifications what happens if you and your opponent have skills above 100% in their regular weapon skill used for parrying. Is your proposed "dual wield" skill reduced the same way your attack skill is reduced?

 

On the whole, to me your suggestion reads as "don't use this skill unless you have  trained it up to at least the lower of your two weapon skills," or "how to castrate a blade master." Sorry.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, I think your house rules are unnecessary and hardly effective.

22 hours ago, Imryn said:
 
  • When attacking using a dual wield skill the attacks take place simultaneously (not sequentially) and in the order determined by the weapons SR i.e. 1st attack takes place at the SR of the weapon with the lowest SR, 2nd attack takes place at the SR of the other weapon, 3rd attack takes place at double the SR of the first weapon, 4th attack takes place at double the SR of the second weapon , and so forth. If both weapons have the same SR the attacks take place simultaneously.

The rules only grant a single advantage: the SR of the second attack is not the sum of both SRs. While this can be useful, it is not so overwhelmingly useful as to justify Divine Intervention to gain, and above all the highly disruptive effect of having your skill reduced once you have reached 90+ skill in your weapon. 

22 hours ago, Imryn said:

I think this house rule will allow the kind of flowing coordinated action we see in martial arts movies (the good ones, not the garbage), without being overwhelmingly powerful.

Potentially a character could be making about 8 or 10 attacks per round (I think SR 2 is the lowest a 1h weapon gets) but it would be a very long road to get there. Because the lowest skill out of the dual wield skill and the individual weapons is used the player will have to advance 3 skills to improve, and because magic that affects a single weapon doesn’t affect the dual wield skill, it’s going to take a lot of time and effort to get up to the 250% plus needed to max out attacks.

You seem to think that a character with 200% or so skill will make four attacks per round in this way, but this is not what will happen. In reality, a dual wielding combatant will still make two attacks per round in most cases. The reason is simple: with the "subtract the percentiles above 100" rule, splitting attacks is no longer a viable tactics, unless you are facing non-sentient opponents who never defend actively. I see very, very few cases when making two attacks that your enemy will parry may be better than making one attack that surely hits.

So, all in all,

  • it is overwhelmingly difficult to learn the technique
  • while you are progressing in the dual wield skill, your effectiveness is severely impaired (you go back to basics when you used to be a master)
  • once you have learned the technique, the benefits are not a showstopper

I see no reason to bother learning Dual Wield in these conditions.

Note also that once you are 90% in two skills, your friends will probably be high level, too. Your average opponents will probably no longer be trollkin at that point, so you will have to use your now-reduced skill against opponents matched to your allies' unchanged skill level. In these conditions, it is safe to say that the dual wielder will never be back to 90% level: he or she will be dead long before.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I disagree (strongly) with the notion that you need to be a weapons master to develop that skill.

Your way of taking the Martial Arts rules for dual wield would work if there was something more to the skill that just being allowed to use the RAW for attacking with either hand. Like controlling the opponent's weapon to hinder (or even prevent) his parry as an action for both weapons (allowing just one attack).

Basically as a gift, although I think that a 5% skill for a DI is a lousy "reward".

Rather than DI, you could rather go on a heroquest to Kargan Tor's court of weapons and participate there. Trainers found, but you have to prove your mettle first.

It should be possible to do this via a low level heroquest. I seem to recall a magazine-published write-up of a heroquest to Kargan Tor's court of weapons, and I would build upon that. (IIRC Tales, probably #5, the Humakt issue)

To be honest, I dislike the DI option, although you seem to be thinking in "Rune Lords only" terms here.

Your proposal with the additional skill needs some clarifications what happens if you and your opponent have skills above 100% in their regular weapon skill used for parrying. Is your proposed "dual wield" skill reduced the same way your attack skill is reduced?

 

On the whole, to me your suggestion reads as "don't use this skill unless you have  trained it up to at least the lower of your two weapon skills," or "how to castrate a blade master." Sorry.

 

I didn't add any special abilities to the dual wielding skill (apart from the potential to make more split attacks) because I didn't want it to be over-powered. I wanted the driving force behind a player getting it to be role play based and not power gaming based.

I agree that it is a pretty poor gift for a successful DI - that is there as an alternative to finding a trainer, and i intend finding a trainer to be the primary route. Any other route to learning the skill that a GM wants to come up with would also be acceptable.

When fighting an opponent with over 100% skill the excess over 100 would be subtracted from the skill of the dual wielder. The dual wielder always has the choice to not use the dual wield skill and revert to the RAW two weapons rules. On the whole a character who has trained in dual wielding will be at a disadvantage in skill % against an opponent who has trained in a single weapon skill. Not that big a disadvantage though, because you can only get a max of one skill check per session so the dual wielder can potentially get 3 checks per session (one for each weapon and one for the dual wield skill) whereas the single weapon user can only get one.

Overall, am I right in thinking that your main feedback is that getting 90% in the two weapons before learning dual wielding is too restrictive? Would reducing the requirement to 70% be better, or even lower?

 

Edited by Imryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

In all honesty, I think your house rules are unnecessary and hardly effective.

The rules only grant a single advantage: the SR of the second attack is not the sum of both SRs. While this can be useful, it is not so overwhelmingly useful as to justify Divine Intervention to gain, and above all the highly disruptive effect of having your skill reduced once you have reached 90+ skill in your weapon. 

You seem to think that a character with 200% or so skill will make four attacks per round in this way, but this is not what will happen. In reality, a dual wielding combatant will still make two attacks per round in most cases. The reason is simple: with the "subtract the percentiles above 100" rule, splitting attacks is no longer a viable tactics, unless you are facing non-sentient opponents who never defend actively. I see very, very few cases when making two attacks that your enemy will parry may be better than making one attack that surely hits.

So, all in all,

  • it is overwhelmingly difficult to learn the technique
  • while you are progressing in the dual wield skill, your effectiveness is severely impaired (you go back to basics when you used to be a master)
  • once you have learned the technique, the benefits are not a showstopper

I see no reason to bother learning Dual Wield in these conditions.

Note also that once you are 90% in two skills, your friends will probably be high level, too. Your average opponents will probably no longer be trollkin at that point, so you will have to use your now-reduced skill against opponents matched to your allies' unchanged skill level. In these conditions, it is safe to say that the dual wielder will never be back to 90% level: he or she will be dead long before.

There is only one advantage, yes. See my reply to @Joerg about obtaining the skill.

Your skill isn't reduced, you still have your existing skills and can choose to use them as per the RAW rules whenever you want. I imagine that while training up a newly obtained dual wield skill a player will only use it enough to get a skill check, and only against weaker opponents, and then revert to RAW two weapon use. Or even use two weapons enough to get a skill check for the left handed weapon then use a shield.

The high number of attacks at high skill levels is optional, just as splitting attacks with a single weapon is. It is simply another tool that is not available to someone who has not trained a dual wielding skill.

You don't specifically mention it, but would you also be happier with the rule if the required % to learn it was lower? Starting the skill with a lower % requirement for both weapons would mean that the character was levelling the skill up at an earlier point in their career, against weaker enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Imryn said:

There is only one advantage, yes. See my reply to @Joerg about obtaining the skill.

Your skill isn't reduced, you still have your existing skills and can choose to use them as per the RAW rules whenever you want. I imagine that while training up a newly obtained dual wield skill a player will only use it enough to get a skill check, and only against weaker opponents, and then revert to RAW two weapon use. Or even use two weapons enough to get a skill check for the left handed weapon then use a shield.

This amounts to "skill tick hunting", that is the well known technique of using a suboptimal skill against a weaker opponent in order to advance it through experience. This is an undesirable effect of the skill check advancement system, covered in detail in so many discussions on these boards, and generally regarded as something that should not be encouraged.

In other words, your HR encourages players to do something that we usually recommend new GMs to discourage. 

 

Quote

You don't specifically mention it, but would you also be happier with the rule if the required % to learn it was lower? Starting the skill with a lower % requirement for both weapons would mean that the character was levelling the skill up at an earlier point in their career, against weaker enemies.

The high skill level required is just another nuisance in a mechanics that has the core flaw of being hardly of use.

Note also that requiring a skill to be "at least xx%" is akin to the concept of "level", which should not exist in RuneQuest.

So no, moving the slider of the requirement to a lower value would not change my opinion. I would still see it as a "fun breaker" rather than a "fun creator".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

This amounts to "skill tick hunting", that is the well known technique of using a suboptimal skill against a weaker opponent in order to advance it through experience. This is an undesirable effect of the skill check advancement system, covered in detail in so many discussions on these boards, and generally regarded as something that should not be encouraged.

In other words, your HR encourages players to do something that we usually recommend new GMs to discourage. 

 

The high skill level required is just another nuisance in a mechanics that has the core flaw of being hardly of use.

Note also that requiring a skill to be "at least xx%" is akin to the concept of "level", which should not exist in RuneQuest.

So no, moving the slider of the requirement to a lower value would not change my opinion. I would still see it as a "fun breaker" rather than a "fun creator".

All character development amounts to "skill tick hunting". Every rule that has "you must have xx% in this skill and that skill" encourages "skill tick hunting". It is fundamentally built into the game system. It is hardly fair to criticise my house rule for this when almost every single official rule is guilty of exactly the same flaw.

If you want to talk about the concept of "level" go and re-read the requirements for Rune Lords and Rune Priests. Required to have multiple skills at 90% plus right?

The benefits of dual wielding are (deliberately) not that great. I wanted something that added breadth, depth, and flavour to the existing rules, not a tool for power gamers.

If you think it needs more power please say so.

How about having every second attack be  undefendable with parry - the attacks are so fast that the parrying weapon is out of position? I could easily work something like that in, but I thought it would be too powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Imryn said:

All character development amounts to "skill tick hunting". Every rule that has "you must have xx% in this skill and that skill" encourages "skill tick hunting". It is fundamentally built into the game system. It is hardly fair to criticise my house rule for this when almost every single official rule is guilty of exactly the same flaw.

 

I stress that this has been discussed countless times in the last 11 years here. Did you read all of these discussions? You are correct that it is a weak spot "built in" the game system - no rule set is perfect, and this is one of the contentious points of BRP. But you are not correct when you say that it is the same as any other rule which says "you require xx%". Skill tick hunting is defined as "deliberate use of a subpar skill in order to gain more experience checks", and is not encouraged by all rules that require a skill to be high enough. It comes into effect only when you have two skills you can apply and you deliberately choose the lower one in order to gain the exp check. In these situations, the usual advice to the GM is "deny the experience check because the character did not seem to be in a stressful situation".

So my point stays. Having such a low skill in Dual Wield means you cannot effectively use it, and should never rely on it in a real fight until you are 90% in it.

In short, I think that any solution that adds a new skill that replaces normal weapon skill is ineffective. Any added skill should complement, not replace.

Quote

How about having every second attack be  undefendable with parry - the attacks are so fast that the parrying weapon is out of position? I could easily work something like that in, but I thought it would be too powerful.

This would be in line with how it used to work in RQ3. But in RQ3 you had to give up parries in order to make a second attack.

Honestly, i do not think there is an easy solution to this problem. Dual wield is already overpowered in the RAW (one extra attack at no disadvantage - this means doubling the potential damage you can deal in a round), so either you "nerf" the normal situation and add a new skill/attribute that is a prerequisite for you to make the extra attack, or the new feature is basically not worth the effort you put in learning an extra skill: better improve your main weapon skill to further decrease your opponent's chance to parry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

Note also that requiring a skill to be "at least xx%" is akin to the concept of "level", which should not exist in RuneQuest.

I have to take issue with this part of your argument.. The rest of the house rule aside, setting a minimum skill level is not akin to the concept of level. In a game like D&D, the max number of ranks in a skill (along with virtually everything else) is tied to level in some way, but in RQ a skill can potentially be raised to any level, regardless of other factors. 

What a minimum skill level does is simple state that a character must have a certain degree of proficiency with a skill before he may do something else which is more complex. That seems quite fair to me and doesn't reduce the fun level at all. Now normally RQ tends to handle that stuff with skill modifiers, and the minimum 5% chance of success rule normally still applies (tghe resistance table was one of the few exceptions)., but placing minimum requirements for something is not unreasonable.  I wouldn't expect someone with 10% in Read/Write to be able to write and illustrate a book with fantastic calligraphy, nor would I expect someone with First Aid at 15% to be able to perform brain surgery, someone with boat 10% to circumnavigate (or in Glorantha sail around the perimeter).  There are/have been a few places where skill thresholds have been used in the past, such as the caps of skill training vs. experience, so the idea is not without precedent.

I'm not saying that I like (or dislike) the rest of the houserule, only that a minimum skill isn't like level.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Imryn said:

Overall, am I right in thinking that your main feedback is that getting 90% in the two weapons before learning dual wielding is too restrictive? Would reducing the requirement to 70% be better, or even lower?

I am playing a character whose background story had him learning that style from almost the beginning of his weapon training, due to a chance encounter from before his initiation where he saved a weapon master from walking into an ambush. He trained with that master for a while, considering joining Humakt, before witnessing that master's death at the teeth of a "fellow" Humakti.

RuneQuest being RuneQuest, you learn to use one weapon only, too - e.g. when you get hit on one of your arms during training.

 

3 minutes ago, Imryn said:

Your skill isn't reduced, you still have your existing skills and can choose to use them as per the RAW rules whenever you want. I imagine that while training up a newly obtained dual wield skill a player will only use it enough to get a skill check, and only against weaker opponents, and then revert to RAW two weapon use. Or even use two weapons enough to get a skill check for the left handed weapon then use a shield.

This manages to confuse me. What is the point of having to learn Dual Wielding if I can have the result from using the RAW, attacking with both weapons regularly, without foregoing any parry?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has already broken things down fairly well so I'll just throw my voice in and agree with some others here that the Dual Wielding house rules presented here are not only more work but they aren't any more realistic than what is presented in the book and may be arguably less so. The V2 that was posted is closer to something I would consider using as it simplifies things greatly while also dropping the emphasis on learning a skill unlearning another one. Don't get me wrong learning something new can screw with your ability to do what you are used to doing but if anything I would only add a temporary penalty during early practices as it sets an odd habit in your head, like a -10% malus when trying to revert to using your normal hand to attack right after training in the off-hand. (And I mean literally right after training otherwise your regular muscle memory will supersede your overthinking things from training). I would only consider enacting such a penalty for the first 20-30% or so in the offhand after which it has become so common that your brain is used to switching between either hand though one is likely more practiced than the other still.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

I stress that this has been discussed countless times in the last 11 years here. Did you read all of these discussions? You are correct that it is a weak spot "built in" the game system - no rule set is perfect, and this is one of the contentious points of BRP. But you are not correct when you say that it is the same as any other rule which says "you require xx%". Skill tick hunting is defined as "deliberate use of a subpar skill in order to gain more experience checks", and is not encouraged by all rules that require a skill to be high enough. It comes into effect only when you have two skills you can apply and you deliberately choose the lower one in order to gain the exp check. In these situations, the usual advice to the GM is "deny the experience check because the character did not seem to be in a stressful situation".

So my point stays. Having such a low skill in Dual Wield means you cannot effectively use it, and should never rely on it in a real fight until you are 90% in it.

In short, I think that any solution that adds a new skill that replaces normal weapon skill is ineffective. Any added skill should complement, not replace.

This would be in line with how it used to work in RQ3. But in RQ3 you had to give up parries in order to make a second attack.

Honestly, i do not think there is an easy solution to this problem. Dual wield is already overpowered in the RAW (one extra attack at no disadvantage - this means doubling the potential damage you can deal in a round), so either you "nerf" the normal situation and add a new skill/attribute that is a prerequisite for you to make the extra attack, or the new feature is basically not worth the effort you put in learning an extra skill: better improve your main weapon skill to further decrease your opponent's chance to parry.

I am pretty sure that ANY learning of a left hand weapon skill when the character already has a right hand skill for it would meet your definition of "using a sub par skill". Yet characters still manage to learn left hand skills. If you have 90% RH dagger and want to learn LH dagger, even if you pay for training and spend 2 years in a salle you can only get to 75% so it will STILL be subpar and therefore ineligible for a tick.

Obviously there is some leeway. Obviously you don't think my ideas deserve it. Moving on ...

No skill is replaced. The existing skills and RAW stands and can be used at any time by the players choice. My house rule extends two weapon fighting without affecting the RAW in any way.

I think your final paragraph sums up your opinion - "dual wield is already overpowered". Bias detected, feedback disregarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Joerg said:

 

I am playing a character whose background story had him learning that style from almost the beginning of his weapon training, due to a chance encounter from before his initiation where he saved a weapon master from walking into an ambush. He trained with that master for a while, considering joining Humakt, before witnessing that master's death at the teeth of a "fellow" Humakti.

RuneQuest being RuneQuest, you learn to use one weapon only, too - e.g. when you get hit on one of your arms during training.

 

This manages to confuse me. What is the point of having to learn Dual Wielding if I can have the result from using the RAW, attacking with both weapons regularly, without foregoing any parry?

 

I would be open to removing all restrictions for the right and left hand weapons when learning the skill. I don't think it should be particularly common for characters to have learned a dual wield skill, so I threw up some roadblocks but to be honest the rarity of trainers is probably restrictive enough. The DI route to get the skill is expensive and probably nobody would even consider it until they had RL DI available, and even then its underwhelming as a DI reward.

Using the existing RAW for two weapons the second attack takes place at the combined SR of both attacks i.e. the attacks are happening in sequence. Using my house rule the attacks with both weapons take place simultaneously, at their own SR. This allows a character using a dual wield skill to potentially make more attacks per round than a character using two weapons in RAW.

As has been pointed out to me this is a minor benefit, and I think it does not make the skill significantly more powerful. I have some ideas that would make it more powerful, but at the moment I am trying to get a basic framework for learning it in place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 5 June 2019 at 2:35 PM, Imryn said:

Dual Wielding:

Requirements:

  • The character must obtain training in the specific skill to start at 5% + manipulation bonus. This skill cannot be started through experience or research. It can be started through a successful divine intervention roll.

Or Heroquest? Just make it a 0% skill, then you have to get training, you avoid creating the confusion that way.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

 

Or Heroquest? Just make it a 0% skill, then you have to get training, you avoid creating the confusion that way.

 

I think for the same reason it is an underwhelming reward for DI, it is also not worth a heroquest. But yes, that would also be a way to get the training.

The 0% skill idea is very good, I will do it that way.

I am starting to think that I am not going to get any traction with this unless I make it more powerful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Imryn said:

I think for the same reason it is an underwhelming reward for DI, it is also not worth a heroquest.

Not all Heroquests are massive, daunting, dangerous undertakings. Everyone goes on a Heroquest as part of their adulthood rites. Sure, sometimes it gives horribly wrong and they come back to find that they are really an ogre, but that's rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 9:25 AM, Imryn said:

@Mugen I think between us we have pretty thoroughly covered all of the pluses and minuses of using two weapons, but do you have any feed back for my house rule?

My feeing is similar to @RosenMcStern's, I think.

Basically, I think you're making Dual Wielding much more difficult than it needs to be.

My main concern with Dual Wielding or sword-and-board in RQG is that it compares poorly with 2-handed weapons fighting (and I think it shows in my comments).

And it's a side effect of otherwise good moves in RQG rules.
-Having no more attack/parry skill split means fighting with one weapon requires only one skill, but fighting with 2 weapons requires you to learn 2 skills nonetheless.
-The fact skills above 100% reduce the attacker's chance to hit (and therefore, the chance for your parrying weapon to be damaged), combined with the fact you can now parry all attacks with your main hand weapon makes having a main hand weapon skill above 100% a very useful choice.
-Two handed weapons are slightly more durable in average than their one-handed weapon counterpart, and only kite shields are significantly more durable.

But, as I said, these are consequences of changes that are good ones in first place.

Edited by Mugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...