Dual Wielding Unclear

[DriverMike]

I just got set 1 and greatly enjoyed it and bought set 2 even though none of use even reached level 5 yet. My only confusion so far is about dual wielding. Neither book says too much on it other than the talent. Are there penalties behind it? When you make an attack roll do you roll once for each weapon or does the off hand weapon only hit for some of the stunts from the talent? We did a house rule where you got to roll for each hand in 1 attack and a warrior got some lucky rolls and did 24 damage to an enemy after subracting the 5 armor. Sounded a little on the rediculous side. And I guess another question would be if I use the armor piercing stunt and lightning attack stunt does the second attack pierce armor?

[Elfie]

You do not get two attacks for holding two weapons unless you have talents or stunts to allow you to do so.

Until you earn those abilities, all you get out of holding two weapons is a slight attack or defense bonus (and the option to attack with either weapon depending on circumstance).

To answer your other question, no the pierce armor stunt does not carry over to any attack besides the one that generated the stunt. (and bonus attacks can't generate stunts)

[Scott McFarland]

Our group were confused by dual wielding too, as all of us had played 3.5 D&D, where wielding two weapons means you can attack with each one from the get-go.

The DA system is a lot more 'realistic' though about fighting with two weapons. What it does is say that by having a weapon in two hands it's more distracting for an enemy to fight you, as he's watching out for both your weapons rather than just concentrating on one. And with two weapons in your hands you're going to have a 'fighting screen' thanks to another weapon you can use to parry.

Hence the Novice ability for Dual Wielding gives you the option to fight either defensively for a +1 bonus to Defence, or distractingly, giving a +1 bonus to attacks with your primary weapon.

The Journeyman ability then brings in the possibility of an off-hand attack by lowering the stunt point cost of a Lightning Attack stunt using the off-hand weapon. Note that you can still spend 3 stunt points to get a Lightning Attack with the primary weapon, but the reduced stunt point cost of 2 for the off-hand weapon makes it attractive when you need to add other stunts like Mighty Blow or Pierce Armour to the mix.

Finally, the Master ability means you can make an attack with your off-hand weapon as a minor action (as long as you're not charging). As a master of the form, you're going to be able to land blows with both weapons regularly.

Hope that helps.

[Zapp]

The straight-forward approach to dual-wielding in fantasy rules design has been to simply hand out a second attack.

This has almost always been a balance failure, since attacking twice as often is often way too powerful compared to the alternatives.

Luckily many games made during the last decade or so have realized this, and so attempted to provide other thematically meaningful bonuses without breaking.

In short: handling out twice as many attacks because you have twice as many weapons is simplistic and unworkable.

[Orchard]

What it does is say that by having a weapon in two hands it's more distracting for an enemy to fight you, as he's watching out for both your weapons rather than just concentrating on one.

[Scrump]

When we tried it we did an attack roll for each separate weapon. That way one could hit, one could miss. However, if both hit, there is extreme damage. If that seems far to easy to kill enemies I would perhaps recommend having an attack roll penalty on your off-hand weapon. If that seems to not break the easy factor, then another route would be to limit how many minor/major actions that character can take (so they only use it sparingly). So instead of having the 1 minor, 1 major, the dual-wielder could only use 1 major action on his turn. That way he is not running across the board slicing people to bits.

what do you all think? I am in favor of rolling separate attack rolls for each weapon. We haven't used dual-wielding in combat much, but it did save the parties ass and ended the match quickly (which was dragging on forever). Maybe dual-wielding will be better suited for higher level enemies with better defense. Against blight-wolves it will just be pure massacre.

[Estoirtoh]

When we tried it we did an attack roll for each separate weapon. That way one could hit, one could miss. However, if both hit, there is extreme damage. If that seems far to easy to kill enemies I would perhaps recommend having an attack roll penalty on your off-hand weapon. If that seems to not break the easy factor, then another route would be to limit how many minor/major actions that character can take (so they only use it sparingly). So instead of having the 1 minor, 1 major, the dual-wielder could only use 1 major action on his turn. That way he is not running across the board slicing people to bits.

I don't think that's a very good idea, since it would make the Dual Weapon Style's master degree (making a second attack with your off-hand as a minor action) completely obsolete.

Personally, I tihnk the dual wielding RAW (as clarified by Elfie) are fine and don't need any improvement.

[Andferne]

I don't think that's a very good idea, since it would make the Dual Weapon Style's master degree (making a second attack with your off-hand as a minor action) completely obsolete.

I agree.

The play-test rules for Set 3 also give Warriors an ability that make the Master level talent not as desirable. (Rogue as well but it has to do with range instead of melee)
The 15th level ability Quick Strike allows a warrior to make a melee attack with a -2 penalty as a Minor action.

Of course the 12th level Rogue ability Slippery does this to the Master level talent of Single Weapon style to.