PDA

View Full Version : AD&D Dual wielding and Weapon Spec



Sploosh
2011-02-16, 05:30 AM
Hey all,

Im about to do a session of 1st edition AD&D and I was curious on how the dual wielding interacts with weapon specilization. Do you get the weapon spec attack if you are wielding two of the same weapon?

dsmiles
2011-02-16, 05:59 AM
IIRC, you do, however (also IIRC, but it's been a while) only rangers were allowed to dual-wield (by RAW) in AD&D 1e.

hamlet
2011-02-16, 08:29 AM
Anybody is permitted to dual wield in AD&D 1e. Nobody without penalty.

In 2nd edition, only rangers in studded leather or lighter armor could dual wield without penalty.

As far as specialization and dual wielding goes, you get your standard specialization with the weapon in your good hand, and simply an additional attack per round with the weapon in your off hand (usually a dagger, short sword, or hand ax).

Zombimode
2011-02-16, 09:15 AM
I am aware that the rules are not specific on this question, but here how I always read them:

Effects of weapon specialisation:
Whenever you use a weapon your are specialised in, you get +1 to hit, +2 to damage and your attack frequency increases by 0.5.

Effects of dual wielding:
You get ONE extra attack with your offhand weapon. Your toHit with your mainhand weapon is: your normal toHit with this weapon -2 +your reaction modifierer from Dex. Your toHit with your offhand weapon is: your normal toHit with this weapon -4 +your reaction modifierer from Dex.

Now my reading is: you get ONE attack with your offhand, not one attack routine. The attack frequency of your offhand doesnt increase at 7th and 13th level, so I dont see why weap spec should.

Thus, your highly original Trotzt the Blackelf Fighter dualwielding shortswords with weapon spec will get:
Mainhand: normal attack routine +0,5 attacks/round with the mentioned mali for dual wielding and +1 toHit and +2 to damage.
Offhand: one attack with ith the mentioned mali for dual wielding and +1 toHit and +2 to damage.

Matthew
2011-02-16, 10:00 AM
It depends on which edition you are using. In first edition it is unclear quite how secondary attacks work, but because of the concept of the "attack routine" it seems likely that, for instance, a seventh level fighter gets to attack with his primary and secondary weapons twice in odd rounds and once in even rounds (since he has an attack rate of 3/2). On odd rounds his first attack routine trumps initiative, but his second attack always comes afterwards. Unearthed Arcana (and the Monk class to some extent) complicates this by tying attacks to a specific weapon. The easiest reading of this is probably to say (in the case of a seventh level fighter specialised with the long sword) that he has an attack rate of 2/1 with the long sword and 3/2 with the dagger, attacks falling in the following manner:

Odd Rounds: Long Sword and Hand Axe | Initiative | Long Sword and Hand Axe
Even Rounds: Long Sword | Hand Axe | Long Sword

But that is basically an attempt to square the circle.



In second edition the rules did away with attack routines as terminology and stated that a character may only get one secondary attack per round. Since multiple attacks also grant no initiative advantage in second edition and go on even rounds (just to complicate matters) you get:

3/2

Odd Rounds: Pre Initiative | Long Sword and Hand Axe | Post Initiative
Even Rounds: Pre Initiative | Long Sword and Hand Axe | Long Sword

2/1

All Rounds: Pre Initiative | Long Sword and Hand Axe | Long Sword

dsmiles
2011-02-16, 06:04 PM
Anybody is permitted to dual wield in AD&D 1e. Nobody without penalty.

In 2nd edition, only rangers in studded leather or lighter armor could dual wield without penalty.Why was I thinking it was the other way around? :smallconfused:

Matthew
2011-02-17, 09:39 AM
Why was I thinking it was the other way around? :smallconfused:

Maybe Unearthed Arcana and the ambidextrous dark elves? It is quite a common item of confusion, and the myth that Drizzt inspired the second edition ranger is pervasive and persistent (even the latest issue of Footprints contains this annoying factoid).

hamlet
2011-02-17, 10:02 AM
Why was I thinking it was the other way around? :smallconfused:

I am not privy to the inner workings of your thoughts.

Couldn't say.

Mark Hall
2011-02-17, 12:01 PM
Anybody is permitted to dual wield in AD&D 1e. Nobody without penalty.

Drow. Unearthed Arcana.


In 2nd edition, only rangers in studded leather or lighter armor could dual wield without penalty.

Or people with obscene numbers of proficiency slots in Two-Weapon Fighting.


As far as specialization and dual wielding goes, you get your standard specialization with the weapon in your good hand, and simply an additional attack per round with the weapon in your off hand (usually a dagger, short sword, or hand ax).

For a really ugly 1st edition character, try an Unearthed Arcana Ranger who double-specialized in the hand axes he dual-wields. 5/2 attacks, adding +3 hit and damage, with only a -3 in his off hand... less if he has a decent Dex.

Cuisinart of DOOM.

hamlet
2011-02-17, 12:39 PM
Drow. Unearthed Arcana.


I ignore all drow. They were entirely spoiled by Drizzle and his innumerable clones.

But, yeah, the drow were an exception. They must be practicing witchcraft. Burn them!




Or people with obscene numbers of proficiency slots in Two-Weapon Fighting.


Actually, I believe they still had a limit. It depends on how you interpreted the rules. As I have always intepreted them, in 2nd edition, any non-ranger dual wielder might have a high enough DEX to negate the penalties, but could not adjust it to a bonus, only to zero. That's an intensly strict interpretation of the rule, but one I used to maintain the uniqueness of the idiot 2nd edition rangers.

Only you can prevent forest fires . . .:smallannoyed:




For a really ugly 1st edition character, try an Unearthed Arcana Ranger who double-specialized in the hand axes he dual-wields. 5/2 attacks, adding +3 hit and damage, with only a -3 in his off hand... less if he has a decent Dex.

Cuisinart of DOOM.

I don't think Rangers can specialize, even in UA. Might be incorrect, though.

Mark Hall
2011-02-17, 12:46 PM
I ignore all drow. They were entirely spoiled by Drizzle and his innumerable clones.

But, yeah, the drow were an exception. They must be practicing witchcraft. Burn them!

I was that way for a while. I'm actually now playing a drow in a PF game. The DM's world has some drow being smuggled out of drow cities (before being sacrificed to the demons the drow worship) and being raised amongst dwarves. I'm an infiltrator and merchant. I go into drow cities, learn their weaknesses, and sell them weapons. I also stir up problems between them and other races, so the drow will get into expensive, bloody wars that don't threaten the dwarves.


Actually, I believe they still had a limit. It depends on how you interpreted the rules. As I have always intepreted them, in 2nd edition, any non-ranger dual wielder might have a high enough DEX to negate the penalties, but could not adjust it to a bonus, only to zero. That's an intensly strict interpretation of the rule, but one I used to maintain the uniqueness of the idiot 2nd edition rangers.

Only you can prevent forest fires . . .:smallannoyed:

Been a long time since I looked through Combat and Tactics, but I believe you could spend enough slots to completely ignore the penalty with weapons of the same size. But it was a lot of slots.



I don't think Rangers can specialize, even in UA. Might be incorrect, though.

Fighter classes and subclasses. UA also added the restrictions on what their earliest weapon proficiencies had to be... but allowed them to specialize or double specialize in those weapons, if they wanted.

hamlet
2011-02-17, 12:50 PM
Been a long time since I looked through Combat and Tactics, but I believe you could spend enough slots to completely ignore the penalty with weapons of the same size. But it was a lot of slots.

I also ignore Combat and Tactics. Horrible, nasty books. Like the deranged love child of AD&D and GURPS.:smallyuk:




Fighter classes and subclasses. UA also added the restrictions on what their earliest weapon proficiencies had to be... but allowed them to specialize or double specialize in those weapons, if they wanted.

If so, then I stand corrected. Don't have a PDF here at work, but I can look it up at home.