Two Weapon Attack

[SableWyvern]

I've been reading up on the whole two-weapon fighting thing and come upon some questions:

1) The Borderer can get Improved Two-Weapon Combat at 5th level. Does he then get attacks with his off-hand weapon at BAB +5/+0, which would mean he gets two attacks with his off-hand before his primary hand? If not, he can't use the Feat until he hits 6th level, which also seems odd...

Hmm... ITWC gives a second off-hand attack at -5. Only third and fourth off-hand attacks are tied directly to BAB. So, yes, +5/+0 with the off-hand it is.

2) Two-Weapon Defense says that if you're using a shield to shield bash, you can exchange the highest of these attacks to gain a +2 (buckler) or +3 (targe or large shield) parry bonus. So does this mean that if I have this Feat and ITWC, I will basically keep my shield bonus (well, I go from +4 to +3 in the case of the large shield) and get all my lower level shield bash attacks?

Yep.

3) If I instead of the above mentioned TWD chose to take the Feat IUS, would I then get to keep my shield bonus and get the full number of attacks from ITWC as unarmed strikes?

Certainly not by the Conan rules. I'm not sure what 3.5 has to say on the matter.

 

[Trodax]

Re 4: Using unarmed attacks as off hand weapons in conjunction with a 2-handed weapon is a D&D rule. I do not believe any such rule made it into Conan. Thus, allowing unarmed off-hand attacks with 2-handers in Conan is a House Rule.

and

3) If I instead of the above mentioned TWD chose to take the Feat IUS, would I then get to keep my shield bonus and get the full number of attacks from ITWC as unarmed strikes?

Certainly not by the Conan rules. I'm not sure what 3.5 has to say on the matter.

OK, gottcha. From this thread I got the idea that these sort of things were so basic in d20 that they were probably also supposed to be allowed in Conan as well. I probably read to much in to what was being said. Before I saw it here, I didn't even know this was allowed in D&D.

In that case its the traditional two-weapon fighting style that has been made a lot more cost-effective compared to the other fighting styles in Conan. So, to those of you who have run plenty of combat in Conan, do the three variants two-weapons/weapon+shield/two-hander seem balanced?

 

[sbarrie]

In that case its the traditional two-weapon fighting style that has been made a lot more cost-effective compared to the other fighting styles in Conan. So, to those of you who have run plenty of combat in Conan, do the three variants two-weapons/weapon+shield/two-hander seem balanced?

Remember that armour reduces the damage of each attack, so two attacks dealing 1d10+4 each are usually less effective than a single attack dealing 2d10+6 points of damage. Also, two-handed weapons tend to pierce armour more often.

Using a shield keeps you alive, which some players find attractive. We had one hardcore bardiche wielder switch to a warsword and shield because he kept dropping early. Now his Sundering Parry is much more effective, and Power Attacking NPCs don't treat him like a pinata.

 

[Sutek]

...and Power Attacking NPCs don't treat him like a pinata.

ROFLOL!!!!

I don't know...that just made me bust out laughing...probbaly a flash back...

:lol:

 

[argo]

Re 4: Using unarmed attacks as off hand weapons in conjunction with a 2-handed weapon is a D&D rule. I do not believe any such rule made it into Conan. Thus, allowing unarmed off-hand attacks with 2-handers in Conan is a House Rule.

House Rule nothing my friend, it is Conan RAW just as surely as its dnd RAW, same language even.

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon

IOW an unarmed strike need not be a punch, meaning you can make an unarmed attack even when you are using your hands for something else weither that something else be holding a weapon, sheild, or a freshly baked pie you don't want to drop. Fruthermore

Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

The book also refrences unarmed attacks again in the two weapon fighting section on p 183-184. Notice that it does not say that a punch is a light wepon, but an unarmed strike and we know from the quote above that an unarmed strike can be an attack with any part of the body.

Ergo you can use an unarmed attack as one of the weapons in a TWF-routine even if both your hands are occupied (including using two hands to hold a weapon or using one hand for a weapon and one hand for a shield). RAW.

Seriously though, this is hardly broken. You spend on feat on IUS just to avoid AoO's and one on Brawl for the d6 damage and wind up with an off hand attack that does 1d6 + .5 Str 20/x2 AP 0. Compare that to an off hand attack with a short sword: 1d8 +.5 Srt 19/x2 AP 1. For the cost of two feats, 1 pt of damagel, and the ability to penetrate armor you gain the ability to combine TWF with the other twinks we have discussed here (reach weapon, THF, sword n board, etc). Not to mention that the true-TWF gets more mielage out of feats like weapon spec/focus, improved crit, etc. That seems balanced to me.

Mmmm, and I haven't mentioned this before because it opens a can of worms I'm tired of talking about but if you are stressing over the brokenness of unarmed attacks then you are going to hate me for pointing out to you that a Pommel is a martial Light weapon that does 1d4 AP 1. Meaning one could make the argument that it is possible for any sword-wielder to activate all the TWF twinks mentioned above without any feat investment. Of course there is also a counter-argument to that particular twink but I hate to reopen that particular debate...

Anyways, hope that helps.

 

[argo]

I've been reading up on the whole two-weapon fighting thing and come upon some questions:

1) The Borderer can get Improved Two-Weapon Combat at 5th level. Does he then get attacks with his off-hand weapon at BAB +5/+0, which would mean he gets two attacks with his off-hand before his primary hand? If not, he can't use the Feat until he hits 6th level, which also seems odd...

Yup, +5/+0 is correct, just a little perk for the Borderer I guess.

2) Two-Weapon Defense says that if you're using a shield to shield bash, you can exchange the highest of these attacks to gain a +2 (buckler) or +3 (targe or large shield) parry bonus. So does this mean that if I have this Feat and ITWC, I will basically keep my shield bonus (well, I go from +4 to +3 in the case of the large shield) and get all my lower level shield bash attacks?

Right again, TWD in Conan effectievely combines standard TWD and (a weakened) Improved Shield Bash.

3) If I instead of the above mentioned TWD chose to take the Feat IUS, would I then get to keep my shield bonus and get the full number of attacks from ITWC as unarmed strikes?

Yes.

4) In Conan two-weapon fighting seems to be EXTREMELY more available than in standard d20. In D&D you need 3 Feats and a high Dex score (19) to get the maximum number of attacks, and you're still at a -2 penalty. In Conan, all you need is 1 Feat, and you don't get the penalty. If you can also use IUS to get these extra attacks when fighting with a shield or a two-handed weapon, it seems to me that the average number of attacks has been bumped up a notch for ALL fighter types. I'm wondering what the reason for this is. I'm not saying it's bad (although I do think it could get a bit unwieldy), I'm just curious as to why they designed the game this way. Could it be to distinguish between high and low levels in a different way than in standard D&D (hit point increase is a little tuned down, but number of attacks switched up)?

My guess is for two (related) reasons. The first is to let TWF keep pace with THF. Make no mistake about it, massive damage is the name of the game in Conan. The abiltiy to drop any opponent in one hit is staggering espically when combined with other changes in the Conan rules such as the ability to Fight on the Run that every character has (and which favors THF's). In contrast a TWF has to stand still and trade full round attacks with whatever it is he faces and probably will never force a massive damage save except on a crit. There are many people already of the opinion that TWF in stock DnD is underpowered because of its feat-intensive nature (the reason why Ambi and TWF were rolled together in 3.5). The changes to TWF in Conan simply allow the TWF to keep pace with the THF. The second reason is that Conan is supposed to be a game of deadly combat featuring well rounded, self reliant warriors. By giving everbody the ability to use basic TWF it not only makes the game more deadly at low levels (making multiple attacks available sooner) but also makes characters more able to adapt to widly different combat scenarios. Massive damge is king when facing small numbers of large/heavily armored opponents but when being swarmed by a mass of unarmored, low-level savages (picts) TWF becomes a perfered option.

At any rate, sufice to say I aprove of the changes.

Hope that helps.

 

[chikngizrd]

SableWyvern wrote:
Re 4: Using unarmed attacks as off hand weapons in conjunction with a 2-handed weapon is a D&D rule. I do not believe any such rule made it into Conan. Thus, allowing unarmed off-hand attacks with 2-handers in Conan is a House Rule.


House Rule nothing my friend, it is Conan RAW just as surely as its dnd RAW, same language even.

p 166: Unarmed Attacks wrote:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon

IOW an unarmed strike need not be a punch, meaning you can make an unarmed attack even when you are using your hands for something else weither that something else be holding a weapon, sheild, or a freshly baked pie you don't want to drop. Fruthermore

p 166: Unarmed Strike Damage wrote:
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

The book also refrences unarmed attacks again in the two weapon fighting section on p 183-184. Notice that it does not say that a punch is a light wepon, but an unarmed strike and we know from the quote above that an unarmed strike can be an attack with any part of the body.

Ergo you can use an unarmed attack as one of the weapons in a TWF-routine even if both your hands are occupied (including using two hands to hold a weapon or using one hand for a weapon and one hand for a shield). RAW.

(OK, fine, screw it! I still can't seem to get quotes to work! Anyway....)

This line of rationale only holds IF you get an "off-hand attack" while wielding a 2 handed weapon. I can't find anywhere (Conan or D&D SRD) that states a character wielding a 2 handed weapon also may use an "off-hand attack". Therefore, allowing this is not RAW. The fact that head butts, kicks, etc. can all be "off-hand attacks" is not really a point of argument.

 

[argo]

This line of rationale only holds IF you get an "off-hand attack" while wielding a 2 handed weapon. I can't find anywhere (Conan or D&D SRD) that states a character wielding a 2 handed weapon also may use an "off-hand attack". Therefore, allowing this is not RAW. The fact that head butts, kicks, etc. can all be "off-hand attacks" is not really a point of argument.

Actually the fact that an unarmed strike can be used as an off-hand attack is exactly the point. Normally a character has to "weild a second weapon in the off hand" (see p 183) to use TWF. However an unarmed strike is not something you can "wield" since it is an attack with your body. Which would mean by the RAW that you wouldn't be able to make off hand attacks with unarmed strikes at all. Thus a clause was included intorducing special rules for unarmed strikes. On P 166 it states "Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for puropses of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)." This clause enables you to make off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes, something you could not otherwise do. And as I pointed out earlier the other relevant passage indicates that an unarmed strike need not be an attack with the hand but with any part of the body. Ergo an off-hand attack that is also an unarmed strike need not be made with the hand but can be made with any part of the body. Which in turn leaves you free to do whatever you want with your hands.

Simple, no?

 

[sbarrie]

I don't doubt that you have a light weapon (unarmed strike) available while wielding a two-handed weapon, but I don't believe you can use TWF to attack with a two-handed weapon + a light weapon in the same full attack. IDHTBIFOM, mind you.

I don't see a strike to do damage as abusive, but couldn't you also use that off-hand attack to Trip or Disarm somebody?

 

[Sutek]

IDHTBIFOM

:?:

That's one heck of an acronym, man....

I agree though. The idea of using a 2 handed weapon along with TWF feat seems absurd for exactly the resons you mention (initiating Trips, Disarms and Grapples). One eithe has to use 2 hands or one doesn't. I understand that I can have a 2 handed sword and still kick someone in the shins, but it feels like it's an action seeping outside the realm of intent. In a realistic sense, it happens. Historically, it happened. I just think it opens up a can of worms to allow it considering the way the sytem is generally structured.

However, in light of the new rules regrding Shields worm on the shoulder (weird) I gotta say that as long as it dosen't break your game, what argo said is correct: by the rules, it's legal; by reality its reasonable. Allow it and let circumstance dictate whether a Trip or Grapple is over the top.

 

[sbarrie]

IDHTBIFOM

:?:
That's one heck of an acronym, man....

IDHTBIFOM = I Don't Have The Book In Front Of Me.

Sorry about that.

 

[Harlequin]

I too DHTBIFOM but it seems to me that if you are going to allow someone to use a two handed weapon and an unarmed strike as a two weapon fighting combo then you should give them a penalty - say -2 to each attack which is the same is if you were using to one handed weapons.
Using a two handed weapon means
a) you don't have some of your unarmed strike moves available
b) Generally your whole body moves with your actions so it is harder to get the unarmed strike in

I am happy with the idea of the use of two weapon fighting with a two handed weapopn and unarmed strike but thnk the penalty has to apply as it seems to me it would be easier to hit someone with an unarmed strike when using a one handed weapon than when using a two handed weapon.

 

[Sutek]

Except for the fact that (A) if the weapon in Light, which an unarmed strike always is, and (B) if the character has the TWF Feat, then the penalty is reduced to zero.

I think what would have to be monitored is compound atacks like Grapples and Trips and Sunders. These can be taken without being armed, but realistically, if one is wielding a 2 handed weapon, he should be more limited in the other actions he could take that involve certain manuvers.

However, even in the movie, we see AHnold swing 2 handed and then kick people away. Keep in mind that it's still an unarmed strike so if it's attempted, it provokes an attack of opportunity without Improved Unarmed.

 

[Mayhem]

Actually, I like Harlequin's idea.

If Two "One-Handed (ie, bigger than light) weapons eqals a penalty, it seems reasonable that a Two handed weapon and a "Light" unarmed attack would equal the same penalty.

***

Either that, or I wouldn't give the attacker the bonuses he normally ets for weilding the weapon 2 handed. So whilst he would still have the bigger base damage from his greatsword, he would only get his ordinary strength modifer. Or, couldn't finesse a broadsword at the same time as putting the boot in with an "off-hand" unarmed strike.

There ought to be some checks and balances, otherwise its just too attractive a combo.

 

[SableWyvern]

I can't see how an unarmed/2-hander combo is allowed in the Rules as Written.

P156, Unarmed Attack:

Attack unarmed is much like attacking with a weapon, with the following exceptions:

Prokoke AoOs.
Counts as armed in certain circumstances.
Deals non-lethal damage based on size.
Can deal lethal damage at -4 to hit.

No other exceptions (yeah, and not all of those listed are actually exceptions) with respect to unarmed attacks vs armed attacks are given.


P178, Two Weapon Fighting:

If a character wields a second weapon in the off hand, that combatant gets on extra attack per round.

It does not mention anything here about gaining two-weapon combat benefits while wielding a two-hander. Given the fairly unintuitive nature of the idea, I would think such a thing would be mentioned, if possible.


The only comment the rules make with respect to two handers is how strength is added to damage.


I have no problem with allowing off-hand, unarmed attacks combined with two-handers, with some restrictions. But I can't, personally, see RAW support for the idea. It would take a very strong implied reference at the least, and preferably a literal reference, before I could be convinced otherwise.

 

[AZZA]

I read it on the Wizards of the Coast website in the main FAQ under "how do I use Armor Spikes?" the answer specifically mentions using the armor spikes to "even if using a two handed weapon or shield you are assumed to be kicking or kneeing your opponent".
Using this as a basis it was determined that unarmed strikes can also be used in this manner.
Aaron.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, that's fairly strong evidence, I admit.

Raises another interesting question though: why not use two weapons, plus unarmed?

Anyway, I'm happy to stick with the idea that one unarmed attack is allowed in combination with a two-hander or sword and board (assuming the shield isn't being used for shield bash in the latter case).

 

[Mayhem]

Well, that's fairly strong evidence, I admit.

Excepting, of course, that Conan OGL is significantly different in many aspects to D&D. Including the basic precepts of two-weapon fighting.

So evidence from one does not necessarily apply to the other.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, the feats and abilities that enable two weapon combat are more powerful, but beyond that the mechanics are the same, hence the logic should probably carry over.

I do take your point though, and in truth I still have difficulty really considering this an "official" rule, even in D&D, FAQ notwithstanding. On a technical level, though, I would admit it is D&D official, and there are good arguments for carrying the rule across to Conan -- even while counter-arguments could also be made.

Like I said (or implied) earlier, the official or lack there-of status in either system doesn't really concern me, given that I have found an interpretation I am happy with for both systems.

 

[O Dinas Powys]

Raises another interesting question though: why not use two weapons, plus unarmed?

Hey, why not go the whole hog: [1h Weapon], shield and unarmed; [1h Weapon], unarmed and unarmed; or, for the those wanting martial artists, unarmed, unarmed and unarmed?