FixThePowerCombatRules/DualWielding

Official Rule

Actions taken with your off hand have a -1 die penalty. Per GCG, you cannot take more total weapon-based actions (attacks and parries) than your highest-Rate weapon, and you cannot take more actions with any individual weapon than its Rate.

NightRain's Rule

As per the official rules, however a player must choose a leading weapon before rolling initiative. Speed of leading weapon is used to calculate initiative. The player can make no more attacks than the rate of the leading weapon, though these attacks can come from either weapon. If the non leading weapon has a higher rate, the extra actions available can be used, but only in a defensive capacity.

Jaelra's Rule

You get a number of actions equal to the rate of both weapons combined, minus one. Straight Sword and Dagger would be six actions. You cannot take more actions with a weapon than it's rate. Your weapons only add half of your strength to their attacks. (Maybe none?)

Official Version

1. Fifth
2. MetalFatigue
3. ReallyBored
4. BogMod
5. BrokenQuill
6. David.

NightRain's Version

1. NightRain

Jaelra's Version

1. Jaelra

Comments

Okay, folks, I'm sure everyone appreciates all these suggestions, but the pages under FixThePowerCombatRules are supposed to follow a specific format, just like the pages under FixTheSolarCharmTrees. Please look at FixThePowerCombatRules/DualWielding/Initiative or FixThePowerCombatRules/DualWielding/Grimcleaver for examples. --MF

So let's rename it as DiscussThePowerCombatRules then... Format should not dictate function.-ArchonShiva

Can someone give a specific example of how to break the system using the interpetation of gaining both rates fully? The only way I'm seeing to abuse that is by using the defense weapon plus offense weapon strategy, where you attack with one and parry with the other. But that was done before Power Combat, and it didn't break the system then. Given the penalties for fully splitting your dice pool, I don't see how someone can exploit having really high rates. -Fifth

Uhh, I do note that I stated explicitly that my suggestion touched on rates only, not on penalties and the application thereof. I don't see how this is incompatible with the official version. Ergo, I vote for both :)- ReallyBored

I know. I'm just saying that if it's not broken, don't fix it, and I don't see how Power Combat dual-wielding is broken as written. -Fifth

I guess it's mostly a theoretical argument. Why should wielding a secondary weapon give you the same benefits as wielding that weapon alone with only a minor offsetting penalty? - ReallyBored

---

Dual-Wielding Fixes Guidelines

• Shields probably should get a rate and be considered a dual wield case and allow attacks (shield bashes and the like). shields probably get parry bonuses (or this could just stack with current shield bonuses)
• This is really only a suggestion on rate and numbers of actions, not a full fix. I have no idea how penalties should be applied
• This probably could be tweaked to allow a minimum of +1 total actions for each additional weapon. I don't know what effect that would have, though.

-ReallyBored

These are a set of guidelines on what I feel any houserule on dual-wielding should try to conform to. I *do* expect counter-arguments.

Wielding a weapon in each hand should:

• Allow you to do at least something you cannot do with a single weapon.
• Have at least one significant drawback compared to sword & shield (historically should be the best overall option)
• Have at least one significant drawback compared to a two-handed sword (which should be the best to go through armor)
• Have at least one significant drawback compared to a single blade and a free hand. (which *should* remain the standard -- note that these should apply even when you don't actually *use* the second weapon.)
• Force you to use both weapons in a less-than-ideal combination to get all the benefits. (meaning if you can have a -3 defense +10L weapon in the right hand and a +5 def +1L weapon in the left you shouldn't *always* be able to attack with the right and defend with the left unless you're willing to forego dual-wield bonuses. Obviously identical weapons won't suffer so much from this.)
• Take into consideration ALL attributes of both weapons. (for example, if dual-wield is a flat +1 rate, everyone should use a low rate weapon in their left hand and go for extra damage...)
• Take into account ambidexterity. (since some people will use Edges)

Overall, make sure the dual-wield option is useful in a number of situations, but that most players should turn from it due to a significant, though not crippling, disadvantage.

I feel some of these are badly written, I might clean them up if they seem unclear.

How do you feel about these guidelines? Any of them seem unnecessary? Any seem to be missing?\\ - ArchonShiva

• As noted in my suggestion, shields probably should be Rate 1 and allow a parry/full-parry or a shield bash, stacking with their current bonuses.
• The advantage of a two-handed weapon is basically damage per attack. If two-handed weapons generally have less damage than one-handed, it's not a fault of dual weapon systems.
• I don't agree that you should be forced to use the weapons in a less-than-ideal combination. Sword/dagger strikes me as a basic offense/defense combo. I don't see why I should be forced to attack with the dagger half the time. Sure, I want the option, but not a forced attack.
• single blade is, technically, dual wielding a fist/open hand.

- ReallyBored

ReallyBored I didn't mean 'forced' that way. Let me give an example: suppose you have two weapons, a sword with rate 3 and a dagger with rate 4, and a rule determines (for example) that you should get six attacks. You should have to go sword/dagger/sword/dagger/sword/dagger to get all six, even if this means you have to parry with the sword and strike with the dagger. However, you could call only five actions and go sword/sword/dagger/sword/dagger (foregoing one of your dagger attacks). Do I make any sense? Also, note that the guidelines are more about of what I feel dual-wielding rules should accomplish under any system than specifically related to Exalted or PowerCombat. The suggestions below are Exalted-specific. -ArchonShiva

This page is essentially moot, as GCG has announced that the 'official' version is the same as ReallyBored's. - Kicker

Fixed page to reflect that. --MF

Fixes suggestions

Some suggestions (not complete rules) to work from involve:

• giving shields a rate and considering them a dual-wield case (suggested by someone else)
• forcing you to use weapons in alternance to get the extra rate (which allows skipping turns but losing rate)
• giving the combination an encumbrance value like a shield (which still applies even if you have Strength 8)
• consider Dodge to be your left-hand action somehow, so if you use that hand to attack and parry, you won't be able to concentrate on dodging (this could also translate to a defense penalty on parries)

- ArchonShiva

My suggestion lets dual weilding be useful, makes sense from a real world example. The only problem is that it really makes it the best option. Any ways to help that? Maybe two handed weilding adds your strength to the damage twice? -Jaelra

I don't see how much better it is than the official, frankly because it makes dual-wield too useful. Maybe each additional weapon should allow one additional action above the highest rate, but that's probably it. -ReallyBored

I've thrown my suggestion up. Basically, the idea here is to use mostly the same system as the canon rules, but not allow an essence 5 exalt to get the speed advantage of a diaklave and use it to ping attack on the high init with his high rate weapon. As written currently, someone could carry a Diaklave in their off hand, get the init from the diaklave, and then never swing the thing, instead using the high rate weapon and pinging them to death - NightRain

Well, looking at my original rule, it basically didn't achieve much, so changed things around a little. Considering I'm the only person that's voted for mine so far, I've removed the original version of mine completely, rather than maintain two versions. - NightRain

I voted for the official rule for now, as none of the proposed fixes really strike me as any better. NightRain's isn't bad, but I think it might be a little clumsy to implement, and (IMHO) the last thing Exalted combat needs is another step. To add a thought regarding shields as off-hand weapons, I had thought about giving them a fair Defense modifier (not that high, though) and still applying the cover bonus. I'd say the Rate was "Special" - a shield would have a Rate of 2 for attacks and parries, but when used to perform a full parry, its Rate is unlimited. I haven't given it all that much thought, though, much less playtested it. It's probably broken.

Oh, and this: "Actions taken with your off hand have a -1 die penalty." Was there an errata that I missed, or a rules change I overlooked in the PG? Unless my memory has completely failed me, the corebook says that attacks made with the off hand suffer a -1 penalty, but says nothing about parries. Of course, it's quite possible that the corebook meant "actions", rather than "attacks". - David.

It occurs to me that maybe how Changeling did dual wielding might work here? If I recall right at the start of a turn in which you have two weapons you can do one of two things. Either get 1 extra die to offset a multiple action penalty or to have the other blade act like a shield and subtract one success from melee attacks on you. -BogMod

The problem there being that carrying a weapon in your off hand becomes significantly effective than carrying a buckler. One minor twist that might help on this would be to say that weapons can only subtract successes against a number of attacks per round equal to their defensive bonus. -szilard

Do bucklers work against ranged? -BogMod

No, bucklers only subtract one success from close-combat attacks. Target shields subtract from both ranged and close-combat. Larger shields are no more effective than target shields in close combat, but offer better cover against ranged attacks. - David.

I'm quite surprised that a lot of people voted for the official person. The official version failed to account that there are quite a bit of fighters, both in real life and in fiction, who wields a pair of the same weapon. Two knives, or a pair of wind-fire wheels, or two sticks. Surely there must be a significant benefit that balances the drawbacks. As the official rule stands, you get a penalty but no benefit. This also means that my pirate can't fire more than one flame piece at a time, which is silly, because real pirates could draw both their pre-loaded flintlock pistols with both hands and fire both at the same time. How come my fictional demigod PC can't do what a mere historical mortal could? - TonyC

I think flame pieces are a special case that just isn't addressed by the official rule; I'd apply the official rule only to weapons whose Rate is determined by how much the wielder has to do to make an attack or parry. Since a flame piece's Rate is based on it's reload time (IIRC), it wouldn't necessarily be subject to that rule. Now, as to the question of using two of the same weapon lacking a benefit ... well, okay, you're right. Do you have a solution? IMHO, none of the answers offered thus far are any better than the official rule. The best answer I've heard for using matched weapons in pairs is to write two stat lines, one for the weapon used singly, and another line representing using the weapons in pairs. - David.

Foremost, I'd like to hear what justification the others have. Maybe I'm missing something. As for my opinion, Power Combat wise, if someone dual wields, I'd give them the combined rate. No rate penalty. The multiple-action penalty, the off hand penalty, and the individual weapon's own rate balances thing already. Of course, I personally think that Rate as it stands needs fixing, and the best fix is probably getting rid of it altogether. Non Power Combat, I'd give them, say, a +1 die bonus to multiple weapon-based actions. So at two weapon actions, instead of -2 and -3, you do it at -1 and -2. Too powerful? To head off arguments, let me argue that both approaches are not too powerful because anything a PC can do, an NPC can do. If the PC starts doing 6 actions, the NPC can take 6 actions too. Or maybe there are two NPCs taking 3 actions each. This makes wielding a second weapon better than a shield! Well, let's assume that ReallyBored's suggestion of statting a shield as a weapon with excellent defense bonus and high rate, then there's nothing stopping you from taking as many defensive actions as needed, apply Melee (yes, Melee. What other skill would you use to actively move your shield into the path of an incoming attack?) or Dodge with the appropriate multiple-action penalty and, relying on the increased difficulty a shield gives you, still comes out ahead. The best mundane weapon will get you 3 bonus die (either accuracy or defense, take your pick). That's roughly 1.5 success. A shield takes away one success. If a shield gives a good defense bonus, you're guaranteed to come ahead. Artifact weapons with god-like bonus? To counter it you don't hamper the artifact weapon. Get an artifact shield instead. But the person with two weapons get to attack more times! So? You defend as many times as he attacks and then attack when he defends. All else being equal (except for the second weapon vs. shield), you'll defend better than his attack and when your attack comes, your offense will be better than his defense. This rules makes it so no one will ever want just one weapon! This argument has a lot of weight, but I argue that if you want to wield a big axe, then obviously you accept that at some things, you'll be worse than some guy with two knives. On the other hand, common sense says that assuming both parties know what they are doing and have otherwise similar weapons, then the guy with one sword must have some serious disadvantage against the guy with two swords. The guy with one sword had better have really good armor, really good dodge, or be much better with that sword. Thoughts? - TonyC

You don't actually want the guy with two swords to be at the advantage, man. The point is to allow distinct but equally effective options, so as to allow people meaningful but fair choices between concepts. We're not trying to simulate combat here, we're trying to create a game with an interesting conflict mechanic that has a flexible array of cool character options. - willows

Let's pretend that I made Rikku as an Exalted character. I must be missing something, because I'm not seeing these meaningful but fair choices. Rikku would have been better off using just one blade. The risk of being weaponless if disarmed is more than balanced by having that hand free (can catch stuffs, hold on to ledges, swipe that McGuffin, poke Tidus's nose, etc.). Wolverine, with his unbreakable and undisarmable adamantium claws, does not ever have a reason to use both claws at the same time. He'd be better off using his off-hand to smoke a cigar. He'd get stunt dice that way. Look, ignore my proposed solution. It likely sucks. Go back to my first comment and tell me why it is acceptable that a dual-wielding fighter armed with the exact same weapons will not actually use his off-hand weapon for anything. Because with the official rule, you will never see a left-right-left-left-sommersault kick combination from Exalted Rikku. Ever. It will always be right-right-right-right. That, IMO, fails the coolness test. - TonyC

I think the fact that this page even exists is evidence enough that most of us don't find the canon answer totally acceptable. I have a feeling that most of the votes that favor the canon solution are only there because none of the offered solutions seem like any improvement at all. I know that's why my vote landed where it did for now. I haven't been able to think up a solution that doesn't involve a pretty big overhaul of the system. I like Rate, but I think it needs to be influenced at least a little bit by the character's Strength, Dexterity, Melee, or maybe some other things, too. An adjustment like that to Rate (which, unfortunately, I'm not fully sure how to implement) could help. Another option might be to only treat Rate as the number of actions that weapon may be used for in a turn, rather than using it to cap the number of weapon-actions the wielder can make. This would give unarmed martial artists a total Rate of 14 or so, and few people would be able to beat that. I don't know if that would be a balance problem; I'd think that multiple-action penalties would be enough to seriously limit any advantage an enormous Rate like that would allow. - David. (by the way, if I come across as snippy or venomous, I apologize, it's not intentional)

Well, alright. For a dual wielding system to really work, it should accomplish the following:

• Make sense for regular mortals to have as an option, without beeing broken for the Exalted.
• Have both benefits and drawbacks.
• Vaugely line up with how and why weapons were dual-wielded in real life.

The problem with simply increasing the Rate is that it manages to both not make sense for regular mortals, and might be unright for Exalts- since Mortals can't split their pool that often, and Exalts- and the limit of those splits is kinda important to power combat.

Now, the purpose of having a second weapon was defensive. So, how about someone with a second weapon suffers a -1 Accuracy penelty (owing to the extra balance issues), but can act on whichever weapon has the higher Speed, and adds their Defense bonuses together?

... Except the knife has a negative defense modifier. Curses. DS