Two Weapon Fighting

[Persell]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a penalty to a characters dice pools when they a wielding a weapon in each hand?  The 2e Core Book doesn't seem to cover it (and if it does, I've missed it or forgetten where it's at).


Can someone lend an assist pls?

 

[Vanman]

Page 148 of the core book: Step Three: Attack Roll, 3rd paragraph down, Off Hand. Essentially, you lose one die from your pool when attacking with your off hand.

 

[Persell]

Remember that the dice penalty only counts for attacks with the offhand weapon, not both. Plus most weapons intended for use paired ignore this penalty.

 

[Samiel]

A side-effect of lax two-weapon rules like this is, in 2e you can carry one weapon specialised for parrying, and another for attacks. You get the benefit of both, canonically.


Not in my games. You take the defence of your primary weapon as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Laundreu]

A side-effect of lax two-weapon rules like this is, in 2e you can carry one weapon specialised for parrying, and another for attacks. You get the benefit of both, canonically.
Not in my games. You take the defence of your primary weapon as far as I'm concerned.

So the Renaissance fencers using a main gauche never actually used it for parrying, then?  


(It is not a 'side effect', it's intentional.  See the description of the Baneclaw in SotM.)

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

I've got to agree with Laundreu here. There are a number of fighting styles that are built around just that sort of concept IRL. Why shouldn't someone be able to do the same in Exalted? If you're using such a technique, then you likely aren't taking advantage of the fact you can use the full rate of both weapons to attack. Not every two weapon fighting style is focussed on paired weapons...many for just this sort of reason.

 

[Samiel]

My argument isn't with having the advantages of two different weapons or two of the same, but with the fact that the advantage comes with no cost. Although that sounds innocuous, it leads to situations where people feel cheated for playing an honest one-weapon fighter when they could, according to the rules, have a better DV for being a two-weapon duellist etc etc.


I allow people to take advantage of increased rate, which is significant enough as advantages go, but I let them take the lower of the two weapons' DVs. If people want to stunt using two weapons but use only one for attack and defence by the rules, I allow that, sidestepping the technicalities therein in favour of flavour. Likewise if they want paired artifact weapons but don't want to pay extra artifact points just for rate, I allow a discount on the second weapon due to the decreased payoff.


I know more realistic rules for two-weapon fighting would bog down combat, so I'm not excessively bothered. It's just I feel that being able to take full advantage of both without any drawback allows for a lot of abuse and screws people who want to play a single-weapon fighter for flavour's sake.


Especially with the Solar blade-making charm that allows for different minmaxed weapons...

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

But they are paying a price. If they choose to use both weapons offensively, now they aren't paired, so take the -1, and one of their weapons is optimized for defense, so is less effective offensively. They also cannot use a shield, which will often give a better DV return.


As for the single one handed weapon fighter, they also have a number of options not available to the two weapon fighter. They can use their off hand for any number of tasks...whether this be batting their foe's weapon aside with their hand, grappling, rude gestures, swinging from the rigging, climbing, or any number of other options, depending on the situation which would preclude the use of a second weapon. Their weapons also generally fit in areas that the wielder of a two handed weapon cannot fit in... and usually are better defensively than the majority of powerful damaging two handed weapons.


Now, does the combo of Baneclaw and Goremaul have not style whatsoever? Yes. People that simply try to min max this, I suppose can be a problem. On the other hand, that's likely cutting down on how often you're likely to give them stunt bonuses. If something sounds stupid, you can always look at the player and say 'Why the hell do you want to do that? In character, that is.'

 

[Samiel]

True enough. I guess I often deal with people who honestly would use a goremaul and a baneclaw together, and it's an uphill battle to keep people on-track against minmaxing when that's just what they want. In my own circles I find it easier just to rule out such possibilities than to scrutinise people for character validity.


If it works for other people though, I've no complaints at all.. far from it.

 

[Persell]

I go an entirely different route than samiel, I grant all the advantages two weapon fighting has anyway in the core rulebook (added rate (when you use the stats of the offhand weapon for its attacks), pick the better defense value etc.) and additionally handwave the offhand penalty away, because two weapon fighting is clearly a style choice in the exalted second edition rules and penalizes you enough as it is anyway because you can neither carry a Grand Goremaul nor a Speed 6 weapon.

 

[Persell]

The anti-Samiel-houserule argument: Two handed weapons naturally deal more damage so folks who take advantage of their off hands tend to do less damage but are better protected.  This seems like a natural mechanical benefit.  Considering that the defense difference between most one-handed weapons will rarely exceed the DV bonus one gains from carrying a shield, this doesn't seem like a problem, but a viable conceptual alternative to people who don't want to go sword-and-board.


The pro-Samiel-houserule argument: Glorious Solar Saber causes the combat rules regarding parry DV to literally groan in pain and frustration as the charm allows the player to create a weapon as lopsidedly ridiculous as they please, resulting in weapons that hit like pillows and are horrendously inaccurate but have a defense value that's unlike any naturally made weapon in creation.


My take on the matter: the offhand rules are fine as is, they just seem a bit off since few players in this game (based on my experience that is) even THINK to take shields.  The Glorious Solar Saber charm needs to have some restrictions placed on it and I will personally run over any player with a lawnmower who tries to twink out that charm.

 

[LeSquide]

True enough. I guess I often deal with people who honestly would use a goremaul and a baneclaw together, and it's an uphill battle to keep people on-track against minmaxing when that's just what they want. In my own circles I find it easier just to rule out such possibilities than to scrutinise people for character validity.
If it works for other people though, I've no complaints at all.. far from it.

If we look at weapon stats versus shield benefits, a person needs to be benefiting from a +3 or greater defense bonus to get a bigger bonus than your standard mortal shield, while they need a +5 to get past the 'average' Thunderbolt (that being said, the other benefits Thunderbolt Shields have over most off hand weapons often makes them a better bet.)


Of the mortal weapons that have a better defensive bonus than a shield, there are Hook Swords, Khatars, and Seven Section Staffs. The Hook Swords are paired weapons, so they're unlikely to be an issue. The Seven Section Staff has a stiff MA requirement [4] (and given the stats of single handed MA weapons, an all MA character is unlikely to have decent offense in their primary hand, barring a similar investment in melee (since most one-handed MA weapons have fairly poor offensive stats; the Seven Section Staff, for example, has a negative accuracy.)


That leaves the Khatar, which is also cheaper in resource cost...but which is also a 'stunt to parry against lethal' weapon.


Given the sacrifices (secondary ability score, paired weapon, no lethal defense without stunt) required to edge out the shield for a defensive bonus, and the fact that PDV begins look less attractive next to DDV as essence climbs, I personally don't have a problem with how this works.


Now, on an artifact level, I find that the Bane Claw is very attractive due to it's large bonus, and even though like-typed magical material Thunderbolt shields tend to edge it out on usefulness...it is an artifact point cheaper. However, even then, it's only really useful to a PDV user and someone who can afford a decent offensive weapon as well (or someone planning only on being defensive), and it's still an investment of an artifact dot plus committed motes.


So, personally, I've never found off-hand wielding to be a 'free' bonus at all. It's neat, and I'm happy it's available for those who like the aesthetic, and it's not unbalancing at all.

 

[LeSquide]

The anti-Samiel-houserule argument: Two handed weapons naturally deal more damage so folks who take advantage of their off hands tend to do less damage but are better protected.  This seems like a natural mechanical benefit.  Considering that the defense difference between most one-handed weapons will rarely exceed the DV bonus one gains from carrying a shield, this doesn't seem like a problem, but a viable conceptual alternative to people who don't want to go sword-and-board.

The pro-Samiel-houserule argument: Glorious Solar Saber causes the combat rules regarding parry DV to literally groan in pain and frustration as the charm allows the player to create a weapon as lopsidedly ridiculous as they please, resulting in weapons that hit like pillows and are horrendously inaccurate but have a defense value that's unlike any naturally made weapon in creation.


My take on the matter: the offhand rules are fine as is, they just seem a bit off since few players in this game (based on my experience that is) even THINK to take shields.  The Glorious Solar Saber charm needs to have some restrictions placed on it and I will personally run over any player with a lawnmower who tries to twink out that charm.

Out of curiosity, have you ever seen GSS abuse in a game? (Actual question, not rhetorical.)


I'm aware how ugly it looks on paper, but the only time I've ever seen someone try to go crazy with it was in an arena match...and it didn't go well for them. The stiff cost and the fact that it's additional charm action to activate make it seem an odd choice for abuse, especially as a defensive tool; while a +5 to DV is wonderful, it's not likely to be that much more effective than the benefits of, say, Fivefold Bulwark Stance against an equal foe, or Flow Like Blood against  a pack of weaker ones. (This is assuming, of course, a fairly crunch-optimized game. In a more relaxed setting, I don't think +10 defense GSSes are all that common.)

 

[Persell]

*peevish look* erm... uhh... I... uh did it once


I was building a solar NPC to just mop the floor with everyone and thought "hey! Why not?" but in the end decided it was just too cheesy and omitted the use of the charm in that function.  I think I rigged so that he had the two weapon version of the charm that costs more experience... I can't remember how I set it up but it probably wasn't kosher.


But you make some excellent points about the limitations of that charm... I was speaking from the vantage of the hypothetical, a perspective whose stratospheric lack of subjectivity often causes rules to be blown out of proportion.

 

[Samiel]

Now, on an artifact level, I find that the Bane Claw is very attractive due to it's large bonus, and even though like-typed magical material Thunderbolt shields tend to edge it out on usefulness...it is an artifact point cheaper. However, even then, it's only really useful to a PDV user and someone who can afford a decent offensive weapon as well (or someone planning only on being defensive), and it's still an investment of an artifact dot plus committed motes.

Just to point out; the Baneclaw adds a comparable bonus to defense to the thunderbolt shield, but also allows attack, and it adds to PDV rather than counting as a cover bonus (which is overcome by several effects and charms).


So.. wielding a baneclaw in addition to a nice daiklaive is an attractive offer for offensive and defensive power, with a good rate if one wants to batter down an opponent's defence.


I've already said I have no true complaint with the system so long as it works for people. I just know it wouldn't work for me quite so well in my own games, and it doesn't sit so well in my mind thematically as it favours cliche two-weapon fighters over comparably cool concepts like "spanish duellist".

 

[Persell]

If a person wanted to play the "spanish duelist" couldn't you just use the Baneclaw's stats, but nerf the Accuracy a bit? Or whatever it is about it that makes ppl scream so bad.

 

[Samiel]

The Baneclaw was more of an example than a real case-in-point. I simply leave the two-weapon/one-weapon division down to description, barring the rate improvement. I find it's a sufficient benefit to make it mildly attractive, without making it the clear choice over single-weapon or shield-aided combat.

 

[Persell]

Artifact shields are even with the rules as written the superior choice as they support the Dodge DV, too which is -as we all know- the better DV once you breach essence 5, that is, as long as you are not using a glorious solar shield.

 

[Persell]

I don't have my book with me, but I thought shields gave you a cover bonus, not directly enhanced your DV.

 

[Persell]

Artifact shields are even with the rules as written the superior choice as they support the Dodge DV, too which is -as we all know- the better DV once you breach essence 5, that is, as long as you are not using a glorious solar shield.

 

[LeSquide]

I don't have my book with me' date=' but I thought shields gave you a cover bonus, not directly enhanced your DV.[/quote']
The effect is largely the same; the only real difference being what negates it, and (in the case of charms that affect values) if it runs into the DV adder cap or not.

 

[Persell]

Artifact shields are even with the rules as written the superior choice as they support the Dodge DV, too which is -as we all know- the better DV once you breach essence 5, that is, as long as you are not using a glorious solar shield.

Once again, I don't have my book with me, so I can't exactly look up the difference between mundane shields and artifact shields. So, I posted a question, hoping to get a useful response (Thank you LeSquide) not a repeat of the first statement with emphasis added.
If you want to be snarky about the fact you made a distinction about artifact shields over mundane ones, you could at least indicate how they function differently.

 

[Persell]

Huh... what has snark to do with saying something again. I thought you just had not seen this.

 

[Malekith]

I dont  know what its worth, but history  shows that 2 weapon combos are not effeicient.


Asian cultures typically went with 2 handed or sheild sword.


European  style was sword and sheild, and as time progressed, the sheild eventually disappeared completely [with the advent and perfection of guns], leaving the very quick weapons of today [foil, sabre, etc].


There was a brief period when sword and gauche main was in popular, mostly in spain if I remember correctly, but was quickly eclipsed by the sabre.


The Foil/sabre styles are just so fast and efficient for both parry and attack, that the off hand weapon was discarded.[/code]

 

[Persell]

I think shields mostly disappeared due to better armor, not so much guns. Guns contributed more to the disappearance of armor, because the armor didn't stop the shot and made you easier to hit too.