Two Weapon Fighting

So I weild 2 longswords. Do I get +2 damage or +1 damage? Sorry if someone else asked this before!

I would say: roll damage twice, take better result. Like an attack by multiple monsters.

That would be either a good modification of Dual Weild for the ranger, or a completely new move that improves even more his damage output: "When you strike with two weapon at once and deal damage, roll damage twice and take the better result."

But I asked for something different :P also a ranger with dual weild and that rerolling for free would be way too powerful. But a dual weilding ranger that strikes with two longswords? Does he get +2 damage from the weapons?

edit: why was I so sure the ranger's move was called Dual Weild and instead it's called Viper's Strike? °L° Oh well.

Yeah, the attacks were renamed in the latest beta.

You would get +1, not +2 because vipers strike does not deal your damage again, it just deals the extra 1d4.

Maybe I can't explain myself properly. It's not about the ranger. I'll try again.

I'm a paladin weilding two longswords. I describe how skillfully I strike with both weapons and roll a 10+ on a hack & slash. Do I roll 1d10+1 or 1d10+2 for damage? Do their bonuses stack or not?

Doesn't seem to be in the rules... that's why I suggested 1W10+1*b.

Maybe I can't explain myself properly. It's not about the ranger. I'll try again.

I'm a paladin weilding two longswords. I describe how skillfully I strike with both weapons and roll a 10+ on a hack & slash. Do I roll 1d10+1 or 1d10+2 for damage? Do their bonuses stack or not?

Ah, in that situation the second sword would be purely for color, so +1.

Doesn't seem to be in the rules... that's why I suggested 1W10+1*b.

that would be a lot better than just adding +1. 2d10+1*b has an expected value of 8.15, while 1d10+2 of just 7.5.

Ah, in that situation the second sword would be purely for color, so +1.

Are we so sure? It's not a matter of being a power player. It's just that since damage, as everything else, is both descriptive and prescriptive, it would make sense to apply both bonuses. But I can't find anything about this specific situation in the rules.

Also, it's  not that the ranger is the only one that can use two weapons at once. If anything, he's the only one that could get a bonus for doing it IF he has viper's strike.

I don't think there is a clear rule in the books right now for this issue.  Looking at it I'd be temped to make the attack at -1 due to the clunkiness of using two long weapons and make damage +1.  Or I'd leave it as color and stay at +1.

Ultimately you would be doing something that is not covered in the rules, so it would be up to the table you were playing with. I could see this working for a fighter where you say his signature weapon is a pairs of long swords, so you would be able to obtain additional benefit that way.

As written, I would say the assumption is that most classes are not trained to use more than one weapon at once, so they would not gain the benefit from both. Or, more realistically, you might actually suffer a penalty due to the cumbersome nature of duel wielding.

That sounds to me as...

BRAINSTORMING TIME!

How about:

Fighting with Two Weapons:
If you're fighting with two weapons at once, you may chose to take -1 to moves where you could be encoumbered by your weapons (such as hack & slash, defend, and maybe even Defying Danger and Aid or Interfere), and either +1 to damage if you're using your secondary weapon to attack or +1 armor if you're using it to defend.

Quote from: jjafuller on July 02, 2012, 07:18:57 PM

Ah, in that situation the second sword would be purely for color, so +1.

Are we so sure? It's not a matter of being a power player. It's just that since damage, as everything else, is both descriptive and prescriptive, it would make sense to apply both bonuses. But I can't find anything about this specific situation in the rules.

Since things are both prescriptive and descriptive, I think we need to take another look at the benefits and failings of wielding two weapons at once versus wielding a single weapon. Namely that most people would be untrained in dual wielding and though they may inherently be potentially capable of more damage through striking with more harmful objects, they may not use those to as great an effectiveness while doing so. This should come through accuracy translating to damage as well as raw strength of force available.

Also, it's  not that the ranger is the only one that can use two weapons at once. If anything, he's the only one that could get a bonus for doing it IF he has viper's strike.

True, and he gets a bonus because fictionally he has received/undergone training above and beyond others in order to better wield two weapons at the same time. He's opted in to the fighting style at a level above others.

Guys.

Damage is by class and by weapon.  The simple answer is +1 because that's what's striking.  

Describing a second weapon striking is no different than saying "I fill the sky with arrows" (one of the volley 7-9 moves) and hit the enemy with 10 arrows.  Do I roll 10 damage? No. You're applying D&D logic to a simpler system that doesn't bother with detailed weapon sims.  Why do you do 1d10 and not 2d10 damage? Because damage is by class and your skill at using your weapons.  Do you want to fight with a single sword? Groovy.  Two handed bastard sword? Groovy.  Want to describe yourself wielding a flail? That's cool.  How about TWO flails?  Also cool.  When you start trying to cobble together mechanical bonuses into this is where things start falling apart (but what if I have extra longsword blades on my elbows and knees and describe twirling to slice the enemy up with them?)

+1 or -1 on your to-hit rolls is both boring and very harsh.  We're not talking a casual bonus.  This is a huge swing in hits, and a more radical shift in full successes.

If you simply can't live without the 1 extra damage, I say go for it.  You are after all giving up a shield.  But then wonder, what bonus that 2Her gives someone? (Are you going to have to defy danger every time you try to attack someone with a reach weapon?) On the other hand when a sword gets disarmed, broken, melted by dragonsbreath, eaten by a rust monster (take away stuff) you have a spare sword ... so maybe that's a fine deal after all by default.

I say keep it simple.  Take your class damage, and take whatever the dominant weapon bonus is.  Leave everything else to fictional positioning, and describe yourself fighting however is 'cool' in your mind.

If you still absolutely want mechanical bonuses for a traditionally problematic fighting style AND you don't play a class that can multiclass the rangers Twin Viper style - talk to your GM (who is a fan of your character) and come up with a sweet Compendium Class that totally lets you do the things you're aiming for.

Stras is wise. Heed him :)

Also, I'd posit for a fictional effect rather than a mechanical bonus every single time! A compendium 'master swordsman' that specialises in wreaking mayhem with their bladed weapons? Freaking awesome. A move that grants me the fictional power to injure them where they are vunerable instead of a boring +1 damage? Priceless.