Two weapon fighting

That's one weapon in each hand. Not two weapons in each hand.

>carry sidearm on hip
>use shield

Your idea is useless.

You could just carry one extra in your pack.

Even the motherfucking Riddle of Steel gave bennies to TWF.
Pretty great bennies, actually. If you can competently assault someone with 2 wieners, it's impossible to block both at the same time if you only have 1 sausage in your hands, you gotta dodge.

The problem every system and movie/anime/game has with dual wielding and why you autists are so anal about it. Is two weapons shouldn't improove attack by turning the protag into a walking liquifier, they should improove defense. All real-world dual weilding combat systems are defensive and based on the increased speed between the parry and the retort.

It's so two weapons don't become 'the one true way' of optimizing yourself for combat.

Is this Exalted you're quoting? Dual-wielding used to be more relevant in 2e and earlier when the multiple weapons combined their 'multi-attack rating', letting you launch more attacks on your turn if you wanted to, which is something that didn't make it into the new combat system.

The munchkin is strong with this one.

NO, IT IS YOU WHO ARE ONE AND ONLY AXE

...

why would you be axe, when you could be hammer, anyway?

Are you telling me you're hammer?

Hammer? Why, I barely knew her!

I like how 40k roleplay does it, you can equip a weapon per hand and use either without penalty with little investment other than ambidextrious and maybe an impact glove, then opt to attack with both with penalties and talent tax.

I rather thing it better to use an axe and short sword, thereby having ready access to both slashing and piercing damage as needed.

Make sure to also carry a mace or club for bludgeoning, too.

Yeah, RQ6 let you take an extra attack on your turn (which is a big risk with even more massive benefit), and let you passively protect one more location with the weapon which is pretty big.

Shield is a weapon. If you think it is not a weapon ask someone to hit you in the face with it and come back.

One pc in a runequest 6 game I play in dual wields a rapier and a scimitar. His tactic is that he mainly fights with the rapier due to its long reach, but once it get stuck to something or someone gets too close, he has the scimitar to back him up immediately. Also when surprise attacking, he can deal damage with both weapons. He's a sneaky and agile bastard.

Dual wielding in real life isn't the most effective combo, but it can be doable, I know a few guys who practice dual wielding with 2 similar swords in HEMA context, and they pretty much wreck anyone in melee, although they have trained ALOT. I guess the perks with dw is that you can attack with them from more angles at the same time, overwhelming your opponent with light cuts/stabs from basically everywhere. They also are loads better at protecting yourself as you have two swords instead of one, but obviously a shield does that job a lot better. So in a situation where you have no shield for some reason but a surplus of hand weapons, it's an obvious choice.
Dual wielding sure looks cool as hell, and can be effective in the right circumstances such as surprise or enemy has less weapons than you have. Also in no-armoured fighting it can be an advantage to be able to cause lots of cuts, obviously in armoured combat or when enemies have ranged weapons a dualwielder would be srewed.

They wouldn't do it. What now?

So, is this the new "Why would anyone use Axes in combat?"

So this stupid idea makes even shields useless?

Having two weapons should give you a bonus to your defences.

That's cinematic but not a parry, it's a block

Star Wars (or at least Jedi Academy) is the only game I've played (tabletop or vidya) where dual wielding is a defensive thing.

In the kingdom of Disarmia, it is said that combat is decided by he who can carry the most axes.

In the kingdom of Disarmia, the swordhandedman is king

>Invent rope
>Tie axe to arm
>Become king
Get on my level.

>Assassination attempt made with a rust monster

So 4e rules? I assume you have a class capable of multiattacking or something?

>you're disarmed twice, then have no more arms to tie axes to

...

c

Isn't there some historically famous warrior in Greece or Rome who painted a teeny tiny life sized fly on his shield. And whenever anyone asked him about it, he said something along the lines of, "It's tiny now, but when I'm using it to bash in someone's skull it will be the size of a horse."

If you don't have rapier & parry dagger combo, you are doing dual wield wrong. And there is literally no argument to save any other option of doing two weapons in any reasonable way.

Games aren't real, deal with it, the thread.

Srsly tho, two weapon fighting is retarded if you can get a shield instead.

Isn't the answer "poverty"? Same as the answer for why anyone would wear leather armor when, at any given weight, steel is better.

WFRP 2nd edition, I recognise you. You neglect to mention the free parry such a character would gain.

I propose an alternate system. I'm going to windmill my weapons around in the air like this; And if any part of you should happen to fill that air, then it doesn't count against my allotted number of attacks for the round.

Strange how two-weapon fighting almost never happened in reality, while being a main-stay in fantasy.

Why do you think that is?

>Strange how two-weapon fighting almost never happened in reality
It did and does, though. It just doesn't work like it's generally portrayed to in vidya and fantasy books.

I remember Neverwinter Nights counting Rapiers as a light weapon for the purposes off-hand penalties and whatnot.

I made a rogue/ranger that tore through the Underdark dual-wielding rapiers with my big half-orc buddy. I miss that char.

Does a character have to give up an attack to use a sheild?

no, look up the most common form of two weapon fighting and the style that Drizzt seems to based off, Arnis. They use patterns of attacks to create attacks that also double as defense because you create a barrier.

I don't know, user. Why would a style of fighting that was proven very effective by the masters of its use but was so taxing and difficult that it was rarely used be featured in stories about impossibly gifted warriors?

>use two one handed weapons in each hand
Ok, but what if I chose to use one weapon in each hand?

The OP seems to suggest a fightan-system were players wield 2 weapons in each hand, possibly allowing for as much as 4 weapons to be wielded at once.
The replies seem to be talking about dual-wielding.

What was your intent, OP?
Were you actually talking about possibly holding a knife AND a sword in one hand?

Not worth it.
In my game having two weapons allows you to make an attack with each, but each attack costs an action and you have limited actions per round; also the second one is penalized. It also allows specific maneuvers and techniques like double strikes, coordinated parry+counterattack, and so on.

Don't do that.

It's fairly accurate to real life. That said, most people don't want realism, they want fantasy, and even low fantasy gives improvements for TWF.
Good concept? Yes. Good rule? Unless you're going to go full realism on everything (plate mail drastically reducing damage from all sources, guns being OP AF, slicing blades doing literally nothing to any metal armor, most weapons having different available damage types, and fusion damage types, etc.), no.