Does Dual-Wielding = Double Damage?

[FitzTheRuke]

One advantage a duel-wielder has against an opponent using a single weapon is that the latter has to keep track both of your weapons during the fight. So your opponent constantly has to shift their attention from you to weapon A to weapon B and back again at all times. And people aren't very good at doing this in a fight.

Absolutely. Confusion/befuddlement is the biggest asset, in particular when nearly all people wind up with pin-point focus when in the fighting zone.

It's certainly not actually quicker - you can thrust many times with a spear in the time it would take to attack with one weapon, then the other. Heck, you could hack twice with a two-handed sword in the same time.

It's not speed. It's defense and distraction.

 

[Corinnguard]

Then there is practicing with your weapon or weapons, either by yourself or with an opponent to the point where you don't need to think on how to hold your weapons, which stance to use, how to defend yourself or how to swing your weapons. You just do it by rote behavior born from countless hours of practice. You really can't fight and think at the same time. Your thoughts aren't just that quick.

 

[Bluenose]

One advantage a duel-wielder has against an opponent using a single weapon is that the latter has to keep track both of your weapons during the fight. So your opponent constantly has to shift their attention from you to weapon A to weapon B and back again at all times. And people aren't very good at doing this in a fight.

The other thing to do would be to create a bind with the two primary weapons to leave you a chance to force the issue with your second, though your opponent will probably try to grab or block/deflect with their hand in that case. Although if they're using a long weapon - a spear, many polearms, most 2-H Swords - your advantage is countered to a large degree if they're able to keep you at a range where your second weapon can't reach them. It can be very hard to deflect a big weapon with a single-handed one.

 

[James Gasik]

Now I want parrying daggers and swordbreakers in 5e. Or basket hilts!

 

[GMMichael]

I'm hearing, and agreeing, that dual weapons shouldn't do dual damage. There are some other concrete benefits to using two weapons:

• Disarm insurance
• Having a throw-away weapon (literally)
• In gonzo games, two different enchantments readied (see Witcher)
• Better than blocking with your arm
• Opponent has intermittent weakness
• One lethal, one less-than lethal (for watchmen?)

Do these (and the ones I missed) justify not using a shield? Is dual-wielding then a viable alternative to using the meat cleaver (claymore)?

 

[Corinnguard]

I'm hearing, and agreeing, that dual weapons shouldn't do dual damage. There are some other concrete benefits to using two weapons:

• Disarm insurance
• Having a throw-away weapon (literally)
• In gonzo games, two different enchantments readied (see Witcher)
• Better than blocking with your arm
• Opponent has intermittent weakness
• One lethal, one less-than lethal (for watchmen?)

Do these (and the ones I missed) justify not using a shield? Is dual-wielding then a viable alternative to using the meat cleaver (claymore)?

Maybe we need a combat tradition for Dual-Wielders?

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I personally like how Legend of the Five Rings handles it; the Mirumoto school (not unlike the real life Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu) does teach you to use both the Katana (long sword) and Wakizashi (short sword), but the primary benefit is defensive, giving you a second way to defend yourself.

I'm glad to see this shouted-out. As a long time L5R player (back from the beginning) I loved the whole nature of the debate between the Kakita school (the single-strike) and Mirumoto (dual-wield). I always love that Mirumoto's rebuttal to the question was 'Two hands. Two swords.'

 

[Thomas Shey]

This turns on at least two questions:

1. How much do you care about reality? Its actually pretty hard to effectively use two full sized weapons in off hands; most of the time its either two smaller weapons or a smaller one and a normal sized one. And as someone mentioned near the start of this, one of those two is usually used as a defensive weapon (classically, the smaller, but I actually found in my brief time doing it in martial arts training a long time ago that I often got better results out of blocking with the longer blade and following through with the short.) Its possible to fight with a brace of swords (i.e. two arming swords or equivalent). Its even possible to occasionally do a strike/follow-up combo with the two. Its hard enough to do that its been very, very rare. So while double damage is a possible consequence of two weapon fighting, its an unlikely one on multiple grounds.

2. How much do you care about game balance? I know of multiple games that permit two weapon fighting in one fashion or another, but usually either the price to do so is high (in RuneQuest you were throwing away your primary defensive capability if you struck with both weapons, one would be delayed after the other, and there was no assurance that just because one hit the other would) or the benefit is mild (13th Age gives you a reroll if you roll a 2 on the D20. That's it).

So there you are.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

This turns on at least two questions:

1. How much do you care about reality? Its actually pretty hard to effectively use two full sized weapons in off hands; most of the time its either two smaller weapons or a smaller one and a normal sized one. And as someone mentioned near the start of this, one of those two is usually used as a defensive weapon (classically, the smaller, but I actually found in my brief time doing it in martial arts training a long time ago that I often got better results out of blocking with the longer blade and following through with the short.) Its possible to fight with a brace of swords (i.e. two arming swords or equivalent). Its even possible to occasionally do a strike/follow-up combo with the two. Its hard enough to do that its been very, very rare. So while double damage is a possible consequence of two weapon fighting, its an unlikely one on multiple grounds.

2. How much do you care about game balance? I know of multiple games that permit two weapon fighting in one fashion or another, but usually either the price to do so is high (in RuneQuest you were throwing away your primary defensive capability if you struck with both weapons, one would be delayed after the other, and there was no assurance that just because one hit the other would) or the benefit is mild (13th Age gives you a reroll if you roll a 2 on the D20. That's it).

So there you are.

I think this is a very good post. In my opinion, it does depend on the game world and narrative you want modeled.

During the creation of L5R originally, since they wanted to model Kurosawa and samurai films, there were no damage rolls. A katana was deadly enough that being cut was death. Of course, that makes for an unpopular opinion in RPGs where you're used to hit points/wounds/etc, so the schools got changed - one school went fast, one school used two swords (one for defense), one school learned to ignore armor, one school was primarily disgusting in duels etc.

In 7th Sea, there was a huge advantage in the game to being a left-handed swordsman. I'm pretty sure that's straight Princess Bride stuff there, but in the world/setting, it was so uncommon to see someone who used their left hand with a rapier, that it gave mechanical advantages.

TLDR - either way, I think it all just depends on the what's and why's of your world and the story you want to tell.

 

[GMMichael]

This turns on at least two questions:

1. How much do you care about reality? Its actually pretty hard to effectively use two full sized weapons in off hands . . .

Good question. Realism, if I may, is really important to me in a game, because it sets a solid foundation of assumptions that all PCs can make. Without that, you get confused/paranoid PCs and a lot of explaining for the GM to do.

2. How much do you care about game balance? I know of multiple games that permit two weapon fighting in one fashion or another, but usually either the price to do so is high (in RuneQuest you were throwing away your primary defensive capability if you struck with both weapons, one would be delayed after the other, and there was no assurance that just because one hit the other would) or the benefit is mild (13th Age gives you a reroll if you roll a 2 on the D20. That's it).

Was just thinking about this one. Dual-wielding has the inherent penalty of preventing shield-use. So there should be some benefit, right? I made a short list earlier, but it seems that wielding two weapons should give the wielder more options for ending/injuring opponents. That translates to more damage or more attacks or more maneuvers. But...balance. Dual-wielding can't become the ONLY choice (even if it's a good or bad one).