PDA

View Full Version : Two-Weapon Fighting



Trillium
2014-03-31, 08:25 AM
Could anyone please explain, how two-weapon fighting works in D&D Next? Also, there's much unclear with weapon drawing in combat.

While I understand the basic "you need two light weapons, yadda-yadda-yadda, or one light with the feat", some questions still arise:

1) My barbarian has a shortsword (light) in one hand, and a hand axe (light, thrown) in the other. Sure, I can make two melee attacks. Can I slash in melee with the sword and throw the axe?
2) My barbarian has a hand axe (light, thrown) in each hand - can I throw both on the same turn, without Thrown-Weapon Master feat?
3) Say, I gain 2nd attack. I have a hand axe (light, thrown) in one hand. Can I slash with one attack and throw with the second?
4) Say, I gain 2nd attack. I have a hand axe (light, thrown) in one hand. Can I throw the axe with 1st attack, draw another axe as a part of attack action, and slash with the second attack?
4a) If yes, can I throw it with second attack instead?
5) I have a longsword (non-light) in one hand and a hand axe (light, thrown) in the other hand, with no dual-wield feat. Can I attack with longsword on turn 1 and with the axe on turn 2 instead?
6) Say, I gain 2nd attack. I have a longsword (non-light) in one hand and a hand axe (light, thrown) in the other hand, with no dual-wield feat. Can use one attack to his with sword, and another with axe?
6a) If yes, can I throw the axe instead?
7) Say, my bard wield two hand crossbows (light) - can I shoot them both the same turn?
8) My bard wields a hand crossbow (light) and a dagger (light, thrown). Can I shoot the crossbow and stab with dagger the same turn?
8a) If yes, can I throw the dagger instead?
9) What penalty would you impose for trying to throw a non-thrown weapon (like greatsword)? I thought of no proficiency bonus and disadvantage, but that seems kinda weak.

TheLoneCleric
2014-03-31, 10:31 AM
I'd have to sit down later and re-read the feat, but I gather with out it you are limited to one weapon per turn whatever hand you wield it in. I don't think Next worries about handiness.

Joe the Rat
2014-03-31, 12:52 PM
Yeah, unless you are using TWF for an extra attack, it doesn't matter what you have. You can be swinging two battle-axes, so long as you only use one per attack action. I don't think there's any limit to switching between attack 'ranges' between extra attacks.

On the others: I don't have the packet on hand, but if the feats don't explicitly provide mixed-range or double-toss, or is explicitly stated as being for melee attacks, I'd be inclined to allow shoot-n-stab or stab-n-toss for 'normal' two-weapon fighting.

TheLoneCleric
2014-03-31, 02:31 PM
Ya. That's my take on it. Two daggers is fine to stab/toss.

A crossbow would take switching your attack on the next action to account for aiming and firing.

Lokiare
2014-03-31, 04:21 PM
I personally wish they would simplify it by saying you can make any number of attacks per round with any weapons you have held with disadvantage if you are not wielding two light weapons with a cumulative -2 to the attack roll for every attack made to all the attacks.

momogila
2014-04-09, 05:57 AM
I personally wish they would simplify it by saying you can make any number of attacks per round with any weapons you have held with disadvantage if you are not wielding two light weapons with a cumulative -2 to the attack roll for every attack made to all the attacks.

thanks for info

http://watchfree.me/114/w.png

Person_Man
2014-04-09, 07:56 AM
I really hope that meaningful Two-Weapon Fighting options don't get segregated into a Ranger Archetype. It severely limits their design options, and doesn't make much sense from a fluff perspective. (Why can't a Fighter or a Rogue use Two-Weapon Fighting tricks?)

Joe the Rat
2014-04-10, 07:33 PM
I really hope that meaningful Two-Weapon Fighting options don't get segregated into a Ranger Archetype. It severely limits their design options, and doesn't make much sense from a fluff perspective. (Why can't a Fighter or a Rogue use Two-Weapon Fighting tricks?)

It's pretty much fair game for anyone. two light weapons, no strength bonus on your off hand, anyone can go with it.

As a class feature, two-weapon "fighting style" is available for Rangers and Fighters. Really, all this style does is let you apply your strength/dex damage bonus to both weapons. It's doable without. The cool kid tricks (AC bonus, medium-and-light weapon fighting) is available via Feat.

Warskull
2014-04-10, 08:49 PM
Normally: You may only dual wield with two light weapons. Whenever you attack you gain an extra attack from the second weapon. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage from the second weapon. Anyone can do this. Your wizard can dual wield darts.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style: You may now add your ability modifier to the second weapon. This is available to ranger, paladin, and fighter.

Dual Wielder fear: Now only one weapon needs to be light. You gain +1AC when using two weapons. Anyone can take this and it also gives you martial proficiency for light weapons.

Two-weapon fighting does not care how you attack. You can throw an axe with one hand and melee with the other, throw with both hands, melee with both, or fire two hand crossbows in an attack.

cfalcon
2014-04-14, 12:53 AM
So if a rogue wants to dual wield he just gets that sort of as extra damage, and if he takes the feat he gets to wield a bigger weapon in the main hand and gets +1 AC.

Are there reasons such as sneak attack to stack on to each attack?

Are real world weapons styles such as "a case of rapiers" (two one-handed weapons in 3.X lingo) supported at all?

Is there an emphasis on weapon specific feats and tricks? Aka, can you model Musashi Miyamoto or if you were to try would you have trivially taken a terrible path?


When I googled this there was some statement about a recentish rules change giving a rogue a reason to have a rapier in one hand and no weapon in another. Is there a benefit to having an open hand, versus having a shield or a weapon?


And partially unrelated, are bucklers still strapped to the arm like in previous versions, or are they like historical bucklers and grasped in the fist?

Joe the Rat
2014-04-14, 08:21 AM
And partially unrelated, are bucklers still strapped to the arm like in previous versions, or are they like historical bucklers and grasped in the fist?
The playtest material is rather vague on shields altogether, but if I were to hazard a guess, it's buckled on to keep your hand free. That doesn't mean you can't decide your game has held bucklers.

What I want to know is if they decide to class buckler as a light weapon for shield masters, for when you absolutely, positively have to punch someone in the face while stabbing them.

1of3
2014-04-15, 07:31 AM
So if a rogue wants to dual wield he just gets that sort of as extra damage, and if he takes the feat he gets to wield a bigger weapon in the main hand and gets +1 AC.

Yes. Although you might choose to attack another creature with your off hand weapon or use the attack to apply your Sneak Attack, if you missed the first one.


Are real world weapons styles such as "a case of rapiers" (two one-handed weapons in 3.X lingo) supported at all?

As was mentioned, yes. Take that feat.

obryn
2014-04-15, 10:31 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it's weird you get an extra attack for having a second weapon?

Never seemed right to me.

da_chicken
2014-05-02, 05:31 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it's weird you get an extra attack for having a second weapon?

Never seemed right to me.

Eh. It could be implemented as adding the the offhand weapon damage to the main hand attack. The problem then is you'd get main hand +5 scimitars with off-hand weapons like +1 flaming shock frost caustic daggers. Since weapons are balanced against needing to roll a to-hit die to strike with them, it works out better to make players attack with them as well.

cfalcon
2014-05-02, 05:56 PM
As was mentioned, yes. Take that feat.

My example ("a case of rapiers") is, under 3.5 at least, two "one handed" weapons- neither is light. Are rapiers light weapons in 5th?

Is it possible to dual wield weapons if neither one is light?

huttj509
2014-05-02, 07:05 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it's weird you get an extra attack for having a second weapon?

Never seemed right to me.

You're not the only one, but more realistic fighting styles such as adding a bonus to defense or bonus to hit, without adding extra attacks, have not gone over well in the past. A lot can depend on how you view combat (does each twitch of a weapon require a separate attack roll, or is the attack(s) each round simplifying/encompassing a series of maneuvers, feints, attacks, and successful attacks over the course of 6 seconds?).

Lokiare
2014-05-02, 07:33 PM
The best way is to treat them as a single attack splitting the damage between the two attacks. That way you can't stack super powered buffs on each attack. This would solve the 'rangers in 4E are way overpowered' problem. So you make two attacks each with the same bonuses to attack (it would be equal to the bonuses from a regular attack), but split all effects on the two attacks in half. If you deal 1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage with one weapon and 1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage, you would deal ((1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage) / 2) + (1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage) / 2) damage with each weapon. Works out great. If everything is halved on the damage end, then nothing can be added to it to make it broken that couldn't be added to a normal attack.

Envyus
2014-05-05, 12:40 AM
The best way is to treat them as a single attack splitting the damage between the two attacks. That way you can't stack super powered buffs on each attack. This would solve the 'rangers in 4E are way overpowered' problem. So you make two attacks each with the same bonuses to attack (it would be equal to the bonuses from a regular attack), but split all effects on the two attacks in half. If you deal 1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage with one weapon and 1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage, you would deal ((1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage) / 2) + (1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage) / 2) damage with each weapon. Works out great. If everything is halved on the damage end, then nothing can be added to it to make it broken that couldn't be added to a normal attack.

I think you missed the point.

Lokiare
2014-05-06, 11:15 PM
I think you missed the point.

Care to elaborate?

Another solution would be to allow players to make as many attacks as they want up to their dex modifier. Then for each extra attack they make in a round, have a cumulative -2 penalty to all the attack rolls. The other option is to tell them they can make one extra attack and then just give them a non-negatable disadvantage roll to it. I like the other idea better though. You could finagle a crit fisher that misses a lot build out of that one. You would miss most of the time, but about 1/4th of the time you would not only hit, but crit. That would be an interesting build. -10 to attack, with a 18.549375% chance to crit on any given round.

da_chicken
2014-05-07, 12:34 AM
Care to elaborate?

You fixed the wrong bit. You normalized damage without removing the number of attacks which is what the poster thought was undesirable about TWF.

Envyus
2014-05-07, 12:45 AM
18.549375%

Just say 18% or if your picky 18.5%

Anyway guy above me made my point.

Lokiare
2014-05-07, 01:02 PM
I did the math, which is why that 18 had a bunch of numbers next to it.

The extra attacks are desirable, its why most people take two-weapon fighting. Normalizing the damage keeps players from stacking bonuses onto the multiple attacks, which makes the only thing desirable about two-weapon fighting to be a slightly higher chance of a crit. Basically it fixes the outcome of having multiple attacks. I'm looking at the end result, they are looking at one of the causes.

da_chicken
2014-05-07, 07:27 PM
The extra attacks are desirable, its why most people take two-weapon fighting.

Except everybody since obryn has been talking about TWF alternatives that don't involve extra attacks. You're still talking about using extra attacks to model how TWF works.


Normalizing the damage keeps players from stacking bonuses onto the multiple attacks, which makes the only thing desirable about two-weapon fighting to be a slightly higher chance of a crit. Basically it fixes the outcome of having multiple attacks. I'm looking at the end result, they are looking at one of the causes.

No, you decided that Twin Strike's damage scaling problem was the problem people had with TWF, without considering the fact that the extra attack rolls are the problem that people might have.

Look, an attack roll in most editions of D&D is supposed to represent a few seconds of combat, not merely a single sword thrust. It's an abstraction for an atomic attempt to overcome the defenses of an opponent. Iterative attacks, for editions that have them, represent additional skill in battle not additional sword swings. If we accept that that is the case, then why does holding two weapons mean you get two attempts to do that? It's still just one attempt to overcome defenses. You're not any more skilled just because you have a dagger in your off hand. And why are all your attacks one main hand, one off hand? Don't some off-hand weapons like sword breakers and main gauche work mostly defensively? What makes a main gauche worse than a [historic] buckler? Shouldn't using a +3 longsword with a +2 dagger give you, I don't know, +damage to your main hand and +AC? Why does it give you an extra attack and not some other mechanic?

The attack abstraction also breaks down with respect to ranged weapons and ammunition, too. Even if you assume ammunition is similarly abstracted, it still makes things like Rapid Shot or Twin Strike pretty odd.

Envyus
2014-05-08, 03:25 AM
I did the math, which is why that 18 had a bunch of numbers next to it.


And I am saying that was pointless and 18.5 would have been fine and gotten the point across.

D-naras
2014-05-08, 03:50 AM
Legend of the Five Rings has two-weapon fighting only give AC. The only way to get extra attacks for holding a second weapon is either to be max level in a particular shool and hit twice with your main hand weapon. Also there is something like a feat, available to really high level characters that makes it easier to try to get an extra attack (though all character can theorically attempt to make an extra attack. This feat just makes it easier) with your off hand.

I think that it's a player expectation artifact. The average player that wields a second weapon will expect to get an extra attack. If he holds a shield, he will want extra AC, not an extra attack. I don't think there is an elegant way to make your off-hand weapon provide both additional protection and offense in DnD. It's either an attack, or extra AC and DnD players are trained to expect getting the extra attack, not the more appropriate AC bonus.

In my system, wielding a second weapon grants you what is effectively a second reaction per turn (using Next terms) that can either be used to take a swing with your off-hand with disadvantage or grant disadvantage to someone attacking you.

Lokiare
2014-05-08, 07:01 PM
13th Age lets you reroll an attack if you roll under the escalation die (basically a cumulative +1 every round after the first of combat for the players) instead of getting extra attacks.

Astovidas
2014-05-09, 05:27 AM
i have some other questions about TWF, which arose during your discussion;

1. Are there NO disadvantages to TWF except you don't have the ability Bonus?

Normally: You may only dual wield with two light weapons. Whenever you attack you gain an extra attack from the second weapon. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage from the second weapon. Anyone can do this. Your wizard can dual wield darts.
So, if my ability Bonus is 0 or 1 it's just like a free attack..? i don't need to skill anything or take feats..? it's just as easy as picking up a second weapon and "bam", you can now dual wield..?

2. as a Rogue; can you double Sneak attack when you have two weapons? and can you sneak attack one guy twice or even sneak attack 2 guys in one round (but each one, only once..)?

Although you might choose to attack another creature with your off hand weapon or use the attack to apply your Sneak Attack, if you missed the first one.

EDIT: uh, my bad... i just saw this sentence in the rules: "You can use this feature only once per turn." that's why you said; you can sneak attack "if you missed the first one." sorry.. :smallbiggrin:

I Know my quotes kind of answer my questions, but i think this is so strange to me, that i want to be really sure.. especially since in 2e you had like a -4 and -2 on your attack rolls if dual wielding..

Lastly a bit unrelated;
If you throw a Dagger; do you add Str. or Dex.?
a Dagger is a finesse weapon. so you can chose between Str or Dex. but when thrown you always apply Str? do you apply it to your to-hit-roll and your damage roll?
i mean Damage roll is reasonable, since you can throw it harder or something.. but why do i hit better with more str? (imagine the tiny Hobbit rogue, sitting in the shadows and waiting for the perfect opportunity and the Half-Orc Barbarian, storming in through the front door. Both are throwing a dagger at someone; who has the better chance to hit...?)

Lokiare
2014-05-09, 02:48 PM
i have some other questions about TWF, which arose during your discussion;

1. Are there NO disadvantages to TWF except you don't have the ability Bonus?

So, if my ability Bonus is 0 or 1 it's just like a free attack..? i don't need to skill anything or take feats..? it's just as easy as picking up a second weapon and "bam", you can now dual wield..?

Welcome to the funky math of 5E :), Hope you like it, its going to be the final edition of D&D.


2. as a Rogue; can you double Sneak attack when you have two weapons? and can you sneak attack one guy twice or even sneak attack 2 guys in one round (but each one, only once..)?

Depends on how they worded it. It is likely possible to sneak attack multiple times based on the poor wording in the packet, but that poor wording evokes a particular old school feel right? right? because I sure can't figure out why they would do that kind of thing all over 5E.


EDIT: uh, my bad... i just saw this sentence in the rules: "You can use this feature only once per turn." that's why you said; you can sneak attack "if you missed the first one." sorry.. :smallbiggrin:

Yep, looks like you can only do it once on your turn, but you can sneak attack on your opportunity attacks or if you manage to get an off turn attack using your reaction. Yep, more funky rules.


I Know my quotes kind of answer my questions, but i think this is so strange to me, that i want to be really sure.. especially since in 2e you had like a -4 and -2 on your attack rolls if dual wielding..

Lastly a bit unrelated;
If you throw a Dagger; do you add Str. or Dex.?
a Dagger is a finesse weapon. so you can chose between Str or Dex. but when thrown you always apply Str? do you apply it to your to-hit-roll and your damage roll?
i mean Damage roll is reasonable, since you can throw it harder or something.. but why do i hit better with more str? (imagine the tiny Hobbit rogue, sitting in the shadows and waiting for the perfect opportunity and the Half-Orc Barbarian, storming in through the front door. Both are throwing a dagger at someone; who has the better chance to hit...?)

Sartharina
2014-05-09, 03:03 PM
I actually like the simplified style of two-weapon fighting and the lack of feat taxes. However, I really miss the "Weapon Master" feat from earlier playtests, which allowed you to reroll damage (Making it very useful on high damage-die weapons), and think it should come back somewhere - perhaps as a rule for using weapons in two hands.

But that's a tangent. Honestly, I prefered when Two-Weapon fighting permitted using two full-sized weapons. Sure, it's not realistic - but that's why it's worth a feat. Being able to use a full-size and light weapon at once should be a specialization option available at first level. As it is, it's assumed every character proficient in combat knows the basics of all fighting styles, whether it's sword+board, florentine two-weapon fighting, or heavy weapon usage.

Knaight
2014-05-09, 03:12 PM
You're not the only one, but more realistic fighting styles such as adding a bonus to defense or bonus to hit, without adding extra attacks, have not gone over well in the past. A lot can depend on how you view combat (does each twitch of a weapon require a separate attack roll, or is the attack(s) each round simplifying/encompassing a series of maneuvers, feints, attacks, and successful attacks over the course of 6 seconds?).

There's a case to be made for getting extra attacks, just because you've got better options regarding blocking while attacking. That said, shields should also grant extra attacks by that logic (which I'm fine with, as that holds up pretty well to my experience), as should reach weapons while at reach (and again, I'm fine with that, particularly with something like a spear where going on the aggressive while you are the only one in reach to attack is just standard).

I'd still favor something like a variable bonus to combat maneuvers depending on the specifics of the weapon combination, plus a bit of defense. A parrying dagger in the off hand might only give the ability to stab someone in a grapple, or even create an opportunity attack where there otherwise wouldn't be one for grappling. An axe might give you a shield hook option that gives you a bonus against enemies with a shield (or, as an active attack, negates shield bonus for a round). So on and so forth.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-09, 04:18 PM
This is a simple matter of player intuition. If wielding two weapons, many players expect to roll two dice.

How do they know this? Why, directly from 4E. 4E has feats for two weapon fighting that give a minor damage or defense bonus. The common reaction to these feats was, "...but where's the real two weapon fighting?"

(the answer is "in the ranger class" of course, but WOTC was quick to print a two-attack-rolls fighter as well because of player outcry)

Lokiare
2014-05-09, 07:33 PM
There's a case to be made for getting extra attacks, just because you've got better options regarding blocking while attacking. That said, shields should also grant extra attacks by that logic (which I'm fine with, as that holds up pretty well to my experience), as should reach weapons while at reach (and again, I'm fine with that, particularly with something like a spear where going on the aggressive while you are the only one in reach to attack is just standard).

I'd still favor something like a variable bonus to combat maneuvers depending on the specifics of the weapon combination, plus a bit of defense. A parrying dagger in the off hand might only give the ability to stab someone in a grapple, or even create an opportunity attack where there otherwise wouldn't be one for grappling. An axe might give you a shield hook option that gives you a bonus against enemies with a shield (or, as an active attack, negates shield bonus for a round). So on and so forth.

For reference all editions up to and including 2E used the 1 minute rounds scenario where each attack roll was several swings of a weapon and you only roll damage for the one that connected. 3E and 4E broke it down to 6 second rounds where every attack roll is a swing of the weapon. I think 5E went with the every swing is an attack roll route too, which means people that are arguing that each attack roll is several swings, are basically house ruling and the game shouldn't be designed around a house rule.


This is a simple matter of player intuition. If wielding two weapons, many players expect to roll two dice.

How do they know this? Why, directly from 4E. 4E has feats for two weapon fighting that give a minor damage or defense bonus. The common reaction to these feats was, "...but where's the real two weapon fighting?"

(the answer is "in the ranger class" of course, but WOTC was quick to print a two-attack-rolls fighter as well because of player outcry)

New people won't care, but because of tradition (which is 5E's main draw) players from previous editions will expect and want that 2 attacks for wielding 2 weapons. So if we went with my idea of having as many attacks as you want up to your dex modifier, with cumulative penalties, then a two weapon feat might mitigate the first penalty. The advantage there would be that you could choose to use either weapon on any of your attacks.

For example you might be dual wielding a longsword of vulnerability that on a hit makes the target vulnerable to ice for 1 hit. Then in your other hand you have a short sword of frost. So you would choose to attack with your vulnerability sword until you hit with it, then your next attack would be with the frost sword to take advantage of the bonus damage.

da_chicken
2014-05-09, 10:54 PM
I think 5E went with the every swing is an attack roll route too, which means people that are arguing that each attack roll is several swings, are basically house ruling and the game shouldn't be designed around a house rule.

Uh huh. I would love to see that rule in 3E or 5E. The closest thing you'll find in 3E is when it says, "Your attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round." But that's not the same as "Your attack roll represents a single swing to strike your opponent on your turn in a round."

The truth is, the game never assigns any value to the number of swings made during an attack roll because the game doesn't care enough. Occupying a 5' square is abstract. AC is abstract. Hit points are ridiculously abstract. Attack rolls are abstract. Actual melee combat is not slow enough to be one swing every six seconds. Actual melee combat involves several strikes attempting to damage an opponent, often with strikes occurring faster than once per second. If we assume that D&D is at least partially trying to be even slightly simulationist, it's ridiculous to assume 1 attack exactly equals 1 swing. It can, but often won't.

You'll notice I left 4E out above. That's because by the time we get to 4E, combat is so abstract they never even say in Attack, Attack Roll or the power description for Melee Basic Attack that you're trying to strike your opponent with your weapon. For all 4E says you could simply be holding it and willing your opponent to die. That makes sense, because several classes actually can do that.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-10, 08:33 AM
For reference all editions up to and including 2E used the 1 minute rounds scenario where each attack roll was several swings of a weapon and you only roll damage for the one that connected. 3E and 4E broke it down to 6 second rounds where every attack roll is a swing of the weapon. I think 5E went with the every swing is an attack roll route too, which means people that are arguing that each attack roll is several swings, are basically house ruling and the game shouldn't be designed around a house rule.
.

Actually, D&D's round duration has varied over the years and between editions. For instance, BECMI states that a round is 10 seconds and a character may only take one action in a round such as "a swing of a sword".

OD&D (as in the LBB version) gives us 10 minute turns and 1 minute rounds but no mention of what a single attack roll represents. The chainmail rules which OD&D references states that single blows are struck each round, but of note is that these are blows that connect and who connects first in a round depends on what they're doing, so we could reasonably infer that multiple swings occur during melee rounds, but only one connects.

B/X D&D gives us again 10 minute turns and 10 second rounds. It gives nothing on what the roll represents save for noting that pcs may not attack more than once per round, but that monsters can use all their given attacks in a round.

So D&D has been all over the place with how long a round is and what is or isn't included in that round.

Lokiare
2014-05-10, 09:24 PM
Actually, D&D's round duration has varied over the years and between editions. For instance, BECMI states that a round is 10 seconds and a character may only take one action in a round such as "a swing of a sword".

OD&D (as in the LBB version) gives us 10 minute turns and 1 minute rounds but no mention of what a single attack roll represents. The chainmail rules which OD&D references states that single blows are struck each round, but of note is that these are blows that connect and who connects first in a round depends on what they're doing, so we could reasonably infer that multiple swings occur during melee rounds, but only one connects.

B/X D&D gives us again 10 minute turns and 10 second rounds. It gives nothing on what the roll represents save for noting that pcs may not attack more than once per round, but that monsters can use all their given attacks in a round.

So D&D has been all over the place with how long a round is and what is or isn't included in that round.

You people are going to make me quote the books of each edition aren't you? well fine!

OE Men and Magic: Use Chainmail rules. Alternatively look at these charts. (in other words whatever Chainmail did which I'm pretty sure is multiple attacks with damage only being dealt on hits since it was an army vs. army game.

1E PHB In Combat section:

"The 1 minute melee round assumes much activity - rushes, retreats, feints, parries, checks, and so on. Once during this period each combatant has the opportunity to get a real blow in. Usually this is indicated by initiative, but sometimes other circumstances will prevail. High level fighters get multiple blows per round, so they will usually strike first and last in a round."

2E PHB in section "What can you do in one round":

"...When making an attack, a character is likely to close with his opponent, circle for an opening, feint here, jab there, block a thrust, leap back, and perhaps finally make a telling blow..."

3E PHB Combat section:

"An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the targetís Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."

later on in the same section

"Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. At the table, a round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds, your character can do in 1 round."

6 seconds is about right for trying to dodge an attack on yourself and making an attack in return. I can see higher level character making multiple attacks in the same round, but only if they are lightning fast.

and then they contradict this shortly after in the 'what can you do in a round' section:

"An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly."

So in other words 4E is the only one that uses a single attack roll as a single attack. Wow.

4E PHB:

"Attacks in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS world take many forms. A fighter swings a greatsword at a foe. A ranger looses an arrow at a distant target. A dragon exhales a blast of fire. A wizard creates a burst of lightning. These examples illustrate the four attack types: melee, ranged, close, and area.

Melee Attack
A melee attack usually uses a weapon and targets one enemy within your melee reach (your reach is usually determined by the weapon youíre wielding). Attacking with a longsword or a polearm is a melee attack. Some powers allow you to make multiple melee attacks, against either multiple enemies or a single enemy.

MELEE ATTACK ✦ Targeted: Melee attacks target individuals. A melee attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll. Melee attacks donít create areas of effect."

4E is literally the only edition with a single attack roll to a single hit, and 5E follows this trend.

Edit: That's not to say that your group or others don't house rule hits to be multiple tries or single attacks. Its just what the rules say.

Knaight
2014-05-10, 10:33 PM
6 seconds is about right for trying to dodge an attack on yourself and making an attack in return. I can see higher level character making multiple attacks in the same round, but only if they are lightning fast.

It really, really isn't. I can guarantee that I am not a high level fighter, and sheer speed isn't even an advantage I tend to have in sparring. Yet I can think of several times where, over the course of 6 seconds, I actually landed well over one strike while also dodging - even if I restrict this to just the fighting I did yesterday. For instance, there was a point when I was fighting one person, and another three rushed at the both of us - I dodged out of the way of the one person's attack and stabbed two of the other three, then got hit by the person I was originally fighting, who had also swatted down the third of the rushing people*. That's a dodge and two successful attacks on my part, and three attacks on the part of the guy I was fighting. Moreover, during this process I also blocked an attack from one of the people who rushed me, and the guy I was originally fighting did the same, so that's a dodge, a block, and two successful attacks on my part, and a block and three attacks on the part of the guy I was fighting.

This entire sequence of events took about a second. Not six, one. It represents a particularly fast series of events, as I can also easily point to a number of cases where two groups just sort of stayed at the edge of each other's range throwing the occasional lunge and trying to out manuever each other, but it is also way, way faster than 1 attack and 1 dodge in 6 seconds.

Watch basically any HEMA tournament. There's often a portion wherein the combatants stay out of range for a bit and don't really do much, but once it starts up things move very, very quickly.

*It was not a well planned rush.

Stubbazubba
2014-05-10, 11:59 PM
I'm with Knaight, I've never seen a fight - real or choreographed - where the opponents defended against one blow and attempted their own each 6 seconds, or even anywhere near that. Maybe averaged out between the long periods of attack-less maneuvering and the flurries of attacks and defense, but never actually clipping along at a steady pace of any kind.

But here we are with the whole realism thing again. Not that verisimilitude is a second-rate citizen, per se, but the needs of the combat engine have to come first. Melee attacks are just a component in a much larger, complicated combat engine that accounts for so much more. It accounts for area of effect fireballs, huge creatures, flight, and very odd ranged combat effectiveness. That combat engine makes demands of melee that reality may not be equipped to satisfy. Before you design the player-side abilities, you have to know what they're expected to face.

The length of a round is arbitrary, time doesn't matter whatsoever because the combat engine is its own abstract mini-game. If you want to make it more realistic, the first step is nowhere close to "redefine the attack roll," but "how do we make the abstraction reflect reality?" That would probably require ditching HP and possibly opting for Mutants & Mastermind/True20's toughness roll against a damage DC.

Sartharina
2014-05-11, 03:17 AM
The only time I've seen one attack in six seconds was while playing Everquest 2. Apparently, the swords have a swing time of 6 seconds between them in that game. It feels like forever between blows. And hammers with "only" 4 seconds between blows also feels painfully slow.

Seconds are longer than people think.

Does 5e really say one attack = 1 swing anywhere? I've assumed it's always been the same as in 1-3e.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-11, 04:49 AM
It really, really isn't. I can guarantee that I am not a high level fighter, and sheer speed isn't even an advantage I tend to have in sparring. Yet I can think of several times where, over the course of 6 seconds, I actually landed well over one strike while also dodging

Yes, I have friends who can do that as well. That said, D&D isn't so much trying to emulate real fighting, but the fighting you see in Hollywood films, where combatants spend a lot of time flynning, crossing blades to make snide remarks, jumping on tables, and falling from chandeliers. Within that mindset, striking once per six seconds is plausible.

Warskull
2014-05-11, 09:09 AM
2. as a Rogue; can you double Sneak attack when you have two weapons? and can you sneak attack one guy twice or even sneak attack 2 guys in one round (but each one, only once..)?

Sneak attack is explicitly limited to once per turn.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-11, 09:15 AM
You people are going to make me quote the books of each edition aren't you? well fine!

No, I was just pointing out that your statement was inaccurate. D&D has used different times for different editions. Your statement regarding 1 minute rounds only holds true for AD&D 1 and 2.



OE Men and Magic: Use Chainmail rules. Alternatively look at these charts. (in other words whatever Chainmail did which I'm pretty sure is multiple attacks with damage only being dealt on hits since it was an army vs. army game.

Chainmail included man to man combat rules, wherein each side got one attack in per round, and who got the first attack depending on what they were doing and who they were. But was not explicit over whether the attack was a single blow or attempt at a blow or if it was a full on series of strikes, moves and parries.

That said, I agree that D&D has generally preferred the "single attack != single swing" form of abstraction. D&D Next is about as abstract on the issue as most editions have been, only the text for two weapon fighting suggests that a single attack roll is a single swing. Of course, all editions of D&D have considered a single ranged attack to be a single arrow or bolt or hammer so there's that...


Yes, I have friends who can do that as well. That said, D&D isn't so much trying to emulate real fighting, but the fighting you see in Hollywood films, where combatants spend a lot of time flynning, crossing blades to make snide remarks, jumping on tables, and falling from chandeliers. Within that mindset, striking once per six seconds is plausible.

It's also worth noting that the round time in D&D has always included being able to move ~30' relatively unhindered. The long durations but few actual attacks makes more sense the more stuff you add that a character can do simultaneously in a round.

Lokiare
2014-05-11, 01:45 PM
No, I was just pointing out that your statement was inaccurate. D&D has used different times for different editions. Your statement regarding 1 minute rounds only holds true for AD&D 1 and 2.



Chainmail included man to man combat rules, wherein each side got one attack in per round, and who got the first attack depending on what they were doing and who they were. But was not explicit over whether the attack was a single blow or attempt at a blow or if it was a full on series of strikes, moves and parries.

That said, I agree that D&D has generally preferred the "single attack != single swing" form of abstraction. D&D Next is about as abstract on the issue as most editions have been, only the text for two weapon fighting suggests that a single attack roll is a single swing. Of course, all editions of D&D have considered a single ranged attack to be a single arrow or bolt or hammer so there's that...



It's also worth noting that the round time in D&D has always included being able to move ~30' relatively unhindered. The long durations but few actual attacks makes more sense the more stuff you add that a character can do simultaneously in a round.

Yeah, I forgot about that. When the person up thread did their 2 attacks and a block and got hit in 1 second, did they move 30 feet in the remaining 5 seconds? If you add movement in there, its impossible to do more than a single attack per 6 seconds and still move. Also the person up thread sounds like an experienced fighter. Maybe not level 20, but level 3-4 where they get a second attack. They are also probably using no weapon or an extremely light weapon. Most weapons are so heavy they take 1-2 seconds just to swing once.

If 5e wanted to simulate reality weapon weight allowing extra attacks would be one way to do that.

Knaight
2014-05-12, 03:50 PM
Yes, I have friends who can do that as well. That said, D&D isn't so much trying to emulate real fighting, but the fighting you see in Hollywood films, where combatants spend a lot of time flynning, crossing blades to make snide remarks, jumping on tables, and falling from chandeliers. Within that mindset, striking once per six seconds is plausible.

Sure, but striking once per six seconds doesn't happen, as that doesn't include misses. Plus, Hollywood style fighting often also includes effortlessly cutting down a greater number of weaker opponents entirely too quickly (because parrying and dodging are apparently difficult, main character grade techniques).


Yeah, I forgot about that. When the person up thread did their 2 attacks and a block and got hit in 1 second, did they move 30 feet in the remaining 5 seconds? If you add movement in there, its impossible to do more than a single attack per 6 seconds and still move. Also the person up thread sounds like an experienced fighter. Maybe not level 20, but level 3-4 where they get a second attack. They are also probably using no weapon or an extremely light weapon. Most weapons are so heavy they take 1-2 seconds just to swing once.

It wasn't 30 feet, no. However, that's a matter of the particular example I picked - I can easily think of examples involving both multiple attacks and that much movement. To use a slightly older one, I recently did move 30 feet while attacking multiple times, because I got rushed by several people using short weapons all at once, and didn't want to get surrounded. Six seconds later the entire fight was over 30 feet away from when it started, I'd dodged and blocked more than one attack, and two of my opponents (they were relatively new at the time) were down.

As for the weights - that's outright inaccurate. A 2 second swing is slow even with a sledgehammer, which is an unwieldy mess of a weapon by actual combat standards. A typical, reasonably long one handed sword is on the order of 2-3 pounds, which is light enough to move very quickly. In the example, the guy was using something that fit that description, though the sword was a bit on the short end (he also had a shield, and favors a very aggressive style where a shorter weapon helps). Look at the Real Worlds Weapon and Armor thread, there are some genuine experts there who can comment on the whole "medieval weapons are heavy and unwieldy" myth, why it's wrong, and where it came from. Or just read this (http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm#.U3Ey2vVNTDQ).

Alternately, run some math. Museums commonly report on dimensions even when they don't report on weight, and even when modeling blades as rectangular prisms using the widest and broadest points and picking a particularly dense steel the weights come up well under how they are often presented in older works. They still come up high, as the rectangular prism model throws in way more metal than is actually there, but it still undercuts the mythologized perspective. The same thing can be done with spear tips, along with throwing in a cylinder of some wood for the shaft and just ignoring the counter weight (which makes them feel lighter in use, despite increasing mass).

As for experience - I've been doing some amount of fighting (mostly spear) for about 12 years now. The guy I was describing (my younger brother actually) has about 9 years experience. Both of us have some small amount of actual instruction, and only about the last 5 years have involved large group fighting with any real frequency (and even then, it's 2-6 hours a week, with breaks during winter). That's absolutely nothing in comparison to basically any member of an actual warrior class, and low in comparison even to urban militias and the like - I'd consider "1st level fighter" in D&D terms to be overly generous. The people I know with decades of experience, or who have much more frequent, or who are in very impressive physical shape and are just really good? That's more along the liens of what would fit in the 1st level fighter category, and basically all of them are a fair bit faster than I am, along with having that much better technical skill.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-12, 04:20 PM
Sure, but striking once per six seconds doesn't happen, as that doesn't include misses. Plus, Hollywood style fighting often also includes effortlessly cutting down a greater number of weaker opponents entirely too quickly (because parrying and dodging are apparently difficult, main character grade techniques).
Yes. As I recall, 1E D&D had rules for that. I'm not sure why that was removed.

Sartharina
2014-05-14, 02:58 PM
As for experience - I've been doing some amount of fighting (mostly spear) for about 12 years now. The guy I was describing (my younger brother actually) has about 9 years experience. Both of us have some small amount of actual instruction, and only about the last 5 years have involved large group fighting with any real frequency (and even then, it's 2-6 hours a week, with breaks during winter). That's absolutely nothing in comparison to basically any member of an actual warrior class, and low in comparison even to urban militias and the like - I'd consider "1st level fighter" in D&D terms to be overly generous. The people I know with decades of experience, or who have much more frequent, or who are in very impressive physical shape and are just really good? That's more along the liens of what would fit in the 1st level fighter category, and basically all of them are a fair bit faster than I am, along with having that much better technical skill.Where are 1st-level fighters getting "Decades of experience" when they're only 18 years old?

da_chicken
2014-05-14, 03:59 PM
Where are 1st-level fighters getting "Decades of experience" when they're only 18 years old?

What's an 18 year old Elf doing out of the forest?

Lokiare
2014-05-14, 04:33 PM
I've personally tried to swing extremely heavy weapons. It does take more than 1-2 seconds to swing and recover from say a large steel headed double bladed axe. It sounds to me like you are used to using fast weapons. Your examples also seem to stray from the abstraction that is going on in combat. Think of it as averages, you might strike 2-3 times in 2 seconds or whatever, but between a flurry of strikes you are either blocking, moving, or looking for an opening.

WotC could of course model this with some kind of system where you circle your opponent and each round you roll to see if there is an opening and then based on the opening type you decide whether you are going to attack and try to use that. The openings would grant certain advantages like lower AC or more damage. Attacking openings would modify the opponents roll too if you weren't successful to grant them more openings on you. Of course WotC would never do this. I'll come back later and outline this in more detail. Heck I might just throw together a system and throw it up on www.drivethrurpg.com for $0.99 for those that really want a more realistic combat system. I'll use extremely accurate weapon weights as well as a fatigue system. It should be interesting to say the least.

Also your experience sounds like I said you are at the level where you are getting 2-3 attacks in a round. You know the various attack types and your muscle nerves have them memorized to the point that you probably do them automatically in response to certain stimulus. You are also probably extremely healthy from constant practice.

obryn
2014-05-15, 08:10 AM
I've personally tried to swing extremely heavy weapons. It does take more than 1-2 seconds to swing and recover from say a large steel headed double bladed axe.
Did you then tie a mouse cord on your arm, to check weapon straps?

Knaight
2014-05-16, 02:58 AM
Where are 1st-level fighters getting "Decades of experience" when they're only 18 years old?

I figure that any trained professional using the military equipment of their time is getting far, far more experience than some hobbyist using obsolete equipment. They're also getting significantly better training, on top of quite probably more of it.

Moreover, even if we assume that my previous, younger, less practiced examples (e.g. me) somehow do meet the 1st level fighter requirement (which I'm not willing to assume), that still creates a situation where the statement about time gets really iffy. There's a reason that games like GURPS use the 1 second round.

Lokiare
2014-05-16, 03:48 AM
Did you then tie a mouse cord on your arm, to check weapon straps?

Actually I was at a friends house. He had a bunch of old style weapons like that and I was relatively healthy at the time (back in my late teens). You swing something like that and it might only take 1-2 seconds to swing it, but you aren't going to be back in position to swing it again for another 4-6 seconds, you certainly aren't going to swing once move 30 feet and then have time left over to swing it again.

If you really wanted to have a more realistic game, then you would break the round down into single second rounds like the other poster suggested and have the players roll initiative to see what order they act in, but then increase their initiative by their weapon speed modifier each round and just keep going in one big long round. For instance say we have:

Orc with Axe weapon speed 6, starting initiative 3
Orc with Bow weapon speed 4, starting initiative 13
Fighter with Great Sword speed 8, starting initiative 11

The axe Orc would go on initiative 9, the bow orc would go on initiative 17, and the great sword fighter would go on initiative 19.

Then the axe Orc would go again on initiative (9 old initiative + 6 weapon speed) 15, the bow Orc would go on initiative 21, the great sword fighter would go on initiative 27, and on and on and on.

It would turn out that the bow orc would get about 2 turns for every 1 and 1/3 turn for the great sword fighter. That would be vastly more accurate than what we have now.

SirFredgar
2014-05-16, 04:00 AM
Actually I was at a friends house. He had a bunch of old style weapons like that and I was relatively healthy at the time (back in my late teens). You swing something like that and it might only take 1-2 seconds to swing it, but you aren't going to be back in position to swing it again for another 4-6 seconds, you certainly aren't going to swing once move 30 feet and then have time left over to swing it again.

If you really wanted to have a more realistic game, then you would break the round down into single second rounds like the other poster suggested and have the players roll initiative to see what order they act in, but then increase their initiative by their weapon speed modifier each round and just keep going in one big long round. For instance say we have:

Orc with Axe weapon speed 6, starting initiative 3
Orc with Bow weapon speed 4, starting initiative 13
Fighter with Great Sword speed 8, starting initiative 11

The axe Orc would go on initiative 9, the bow orc would go on initiative 17, and the great sword fighter would go on initiative 19.

Then the axe Orc would go again on initiative (9 old initiative + 6 weapon speed) 15, the bow Orc would go on initiative 21, the great sword fighter would go on initiative 27, and on and on and on.

It would turn out that the bow orc would get about 2 turns for every 1 and 1/3 turn for the great sword fighter. That would be vastly more accurate than what we have now.

This is an interesting concept. I disagree, but that is solely based on the tradition of the 6 second round and the ephemeral nature of combat in D&D. It's not supposed to be 1:1...in other words, a dice roll doesn't equal a single action, but a series of actions. The infinite round is also problematic when it comes to spell duration (they would have have to be reworked) and the triggering of certain "per round" combat triggers.

I would, however, like to seem something of this nature as an optional rule, as I would be very interested to see how this would work at the table.

Lokiare
2014-05-16, 04:14 AM
This is an interesting concept. I disagree, but that is solely based on the tradition of the 6 second round and the ephemeral nature of combat in D&D. It's not supposed to be 1:1...in other words, a dice roll doesn't equal a single action, but a series of actions. The infinite round is also problematic when it comes to spell duration (they would have have to be reworked) and the triggering of certain "per round" combat triggers.

I would, however, like to seem something of this nature as an optional rule, as I would be very interested to see how this would work at the table.

A round for a spell duration would just be from the casters turn to their next turn counting as a round. Then different spells would have different 'speeds' Cantrips might have low numbers and high level dailies might have high numbers. It would probably shake out to be something like 3 + 1 per level of the spell with cantrips being 0th level spells.

Knaight
2014-05-16, 02:02 PM
Actually I was at a friends house. He had a bunch of old style weapons like that and I was relatively healthy at the time (back in my late teens). You swing something like that and it might only take 1-2 seconds to swing it, but you aren't going to be back in position to swing it again for another 4-6 seconds, you certainly aren't going to swing once move 30 feet and then have time left over to swing it again.

These sound like reproductions, and modern reproductions - particularly if they are from decades ago - have a tendency to be pretty terrible. The weights tend to be off, the mass distribution gets weird, so on and so forth. The ARMA link from above covers that to some extent, as do other HEMA groups. Or there's stuff like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIxQIj6mKGM), where the actual fighting involves some pretty fast movement.

Stubbazubba
2014-05-16, 03:17 PM
Yeah, not all wall-hanging weapons are created equal. Most are balanced poorly because they're not actually made for use. Furthermore, we don't have the typical upper body strength of a medieval person. We don't live by manual labor or train to carry arms, generally speaking. Even a fit person today would need time to get used to wielding a metal implement like that to really test what a trained person could do.

But...why are we on realism, again? Is anyone arguing that the game would be improved if we made the combat mini-game more realistic? Did I miss that? Two-weapon fighting should be cool (if it comes at the expense of equipping a shield, and certainly if it costs a feat), and it should work like it does in movies and video games where the protagonists fight dragons, not history books where you fight one other human opponent at a time. Why? Because in this game, we fight dragons and all manner of other beasties. There's no sense in modeling the nuance of one-on-one melee combat when the game's scope goes so much beyond that. We abstract it up to the point that it works for the cases we need it to cover, e.g., fighting dragons and chimera and trolls and gelatinous cubes. Modeling each swing only makes sense if we're making Dungeons & Duels, when all the opponents will, in fact, be other humans. If that's not the case--and it's not--then we need to just abstract the nitty-gritty of what's going on into an overall effect, because there will be whole categories of minutiae that apply to human vs. human duels, but not human v. dragon combat. So we hand-wave the minutiae; you're a trained swordsman and you know what to do against a bandit vs. what to do against a giant, and you do that when you roll an attack.

So what does a cool two-weapon fighting effect look like? Getting an extra attack certainly counts, or re-rolling damage and taking the better of the two, or just rolling an extra die for damage, or maybe tiering your damage based on how much you beat AC by, so that 0-5 is just your primary weapon's damage, and 6+ is both weapons' damage. Those would all be pretty cool. Also, increasing AC by 1 or 2 wouldn't hurt (so long as shields do more). That gives you the feel of using two weapons without dragging out the time to roll two whole attacks, but also not abstracting it all into just a static bonus.

Lokiare
2014-05-16, 04:54 PM
These sound like reproductions, and modern reproductions - particularly if they are from decades ago - have a tendency to be pretty terrible. The weights tend to be off, the mass distribution gets weird, so on and so forth. The ARMA link from above covers that to some extent, as do other HEMA groups. Or there's stuff like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIxQIj6mKGM), where the actual fighting involves some pretty fast movement.

In your video two professionals (1st and 2nd place finalists) take 1 to 2 swings in 1-2 seconds after waving their weapons around looking for openings for 3-5 seconds. That's still well within the rules of D&D for a character with 2-3 attacks. They also move around each other, but I don't see them moving from one end of the mat to another (about 30 feet) between each attacks either.

Envyus
2014-05-17, 04:12 AM
Ugh this is another stupid argument. Over nothing.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-17, 06:33 AM
Ugh this is another stupid argument. Over nothing.

Welcome to the internet.

But closer yo on topic...

Has there been any news from the Dev team or twitter that TWF is being worked on still? From what I remember there was still a lot of people who hated it in the last packet.

Lokiare
2014-05-17, 08:57 AM
Welcome to the internet.

But closer yo on topic...

Has there been any news from the Dev team or twitter that TWF is being worked on still? From what I remember there was still a lot of people who hated it in the last packet.

The books are at the printer now, so no, they aren't working on it and I don't recall any further discussion on it from the developers, though I missed a few convention Q&A's.