I've seen it, but it's nothing special. Just a guy swapping opponents after dropping one. You can do that with iteratives too.I can honestly say I've never seen someone do that, and I've seen hundreds of 2WF characters across multiple editions.Really? That's how I usually see it used in any fight with more than one enemy. It's rather odd, though I suppose it could be imagined to look badass.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about fighting one guy with your primary hand and another with your off hand. For some reason, the guys I game with think it's cool.
It's a dumb fighting style. Ever tried to dual wield weapons IRL?
I fence Florentine. I'm halfway good at it. It does take a lot more awareness of your hands and feet than single blade work, but there are advantages to it. The feinting possibilities are much broader than single blade, and two blades allow you to press an advantage much more effectively than a single blade.
The big problem is that if your enemy can get you tangled up, he's going to gut you before you can recover. It's a lot easier to reset from a bad position with a single blade.
It requires you to be able to concentrate very closely on two different things at the same time, and that just isn't happening in combat. You won't hit a thing. All TWF is is saying "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".
You have to concentrate on a whole lot more than that, even with a single blade. You have to know where your tip is, and where your hilt is, and where your off-hand is, and where your feet are. In sport fencing, you have to track your opponent's feet as much as his tip and his hilt-- because his feet will tell you where the tip is going. In a real fight, you also have to keep track of the off-hand-- because you need to know whether it's a feint or another weapon. And all that's assuming that you're fighting alone, that neither of you has friends around getting ready to jump in.
Yeah, an extra blade complicates matters-- but it does have its advantages and it is a style worth training, even if you're rarely going to use it in real combat.
It's a dumb fighting style. Ever tried to dual wield weapons IRL?I fence Florentine. I'm halfway good at it. It does take a lot more awareness of your hands and feet than single blade work, but there are advantages to it. The feinting possibilities are much broader than single blade, and two blades allow you to press an advantage much more effectively than a single blade.
The big problem is that if your enemy can get you tangled up, he's going to gut you before you can recover. It's a lot easier to reset from a bad position with a single blade.
It requires you to be able to concentrate very closely on two different things at the same time, and that just isn't happening in combat. You won't hit a thing. All TWF is is saying "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".You have to concentrate on a whole lot more than that, even with a single blade. You have to know where your tip is, and where your hilt is, and where your off-hand is, and where your feet are. In sport fencing, you have to track your opponent's feet as much as his tip and his hilt-- because his feet will tell you where the tip is going. In a real fight, you also have to keep track of the off-hand-- because you need to know whether it's a feint or another weapon. And all that's assuming that you're fighting alone, that neither of you has friends around getting ready to jump in.
Yeah, an extra blade complicates matters-- but it does have its advantages and it is a style worth training, even if you're rarely going to use it in real combat.
We're talking about two different things. I'm discussing using one hand for one enemy and the other for another enemy.
Hey Kelsey,
Doesn't that make your "cool guy" flanked?
and do you baddies ever have team-work feats?
like precise strike?
I'll bring that up next time.
What do my characters eat in my games? Depends on the region. In Vendair, my favorite region in my homebrew steampunk fantasy world, which is based off of New England but part of a country based off of Canada, my characters like to eat potatoes, maple syrup, anything with apples or blueberries, cod, clam chowder, poutine, and anything else that's quintessential New England or Eastern Canada. They also like pizza, because Vendair's got Italian immigrants and has discovered the wonders of the pie.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about fighting one guy with your primary hand and another with your off hand. For some reason, the guys I game with think it's cool.
Okay, so: the problem isn't that two weapon fighting is inherently silly, it's that the guys you game with are inherently silly. :)
It's a dumb fighting style. Ever tried to dual wield weapons IRL? It requires you to be able to concentrate very closely on two different things at the same time, and that just isn't happening in combat. You won't hit a thing. All TWF is is saying "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".By that logic, sword and board is a dumb fighting style that says "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".
Fighting with shields was good because it was "ok" at blocking hits (but lost its usefullness as armours got better) but it really rocked by just blocking the enemies sight and holding it in his face or smashing him with it...
I think this argument is inherently silly. I mean, you have no problem with someone being so good at martial arts that they can punch through a steel door but you have problems with someone fighting two enemies at once.
I never mentiond that one way or another.
Something you yourself have said shows up in movies a lot. Isn't that why we play a Fantasy game? To have our characters do things that aren't possible in real life?
I'll tell that to my GM next time he tells me I can't play 15th level red dragon barbarian. After all, I am playing to do things I can't do in real life, like flying and spitting fire while RAGEBURNCRUSHing everything in sight.
I think this argument is inherently silly. I mean, you have no problem with someone being so good at martial arts that they can punch through a steel door but you have problems with someone fighting two enemies at once.I never mentiond that one way or another.
Something you yourself have said shows up in movies a lot. Isn't that why we play a Fantasy game? To have our characters do things that aren't possible in real life?I'll tell that to my GM next time he tells me I can't play 15th level red dragon barbarian. After all, I am playing to do things I can't do in real life, like flying and spitting fire while RAGEBURNCRUSHing everything in sight.I've played a 11th level red dragon barbarian before.
Council of Wyrms rocked.
If there was a PF version, I'd buy it, I'd play it, and I'd probably love it. In any other game, it's too unbalancing.
What do my characters eat in my games? Depends on the region. In Vendair, my favorite region in my homebrew steampunk fantasy world, which is based off of New England but part of a country based off of Canada, my characters like to eat potatoes, maple syrup, anything with apples or blueberries, cod, clam chowder, poutine, and anything else that's quintessential New England or Eastern Canada. They also like pizza, because Vendair's got Italian immigrants and has discovered the wonders of the pie.
Who told you we eat POUTINE down here in NE? TOTAL LIE, this far south we call it "STEW" :P
What do my characters eat in my games? Depends on the region. In Vendair, my favorite region in my homebrew steampunk fantasy world, which is based off of New England but part of a country based off of Canada, my characters like to eat potatoes, maple syrup, anything with apples or blueberries, cod, clam chowder, poutine, and anything else that's quintessential New England or Eastern Canada. They also like pizza, because Vendair's got Italian immigrants and has discovered the wonders of the pie.Who told you we eat POUTINE down here in NE? TOTAL LIE, this far south we call it "STEW" :P
French-Canadian fare is popular in Maine, Vermont, and parts of New Hampshire :D
...Do you really call poutine stew where you live?
This New York Times Best Seller shows realistic two-weapon fighting against multiple combatants.
This New York Times Best Seller shows realistic two-weapon fighting against multiple combatants.
No faair he's wearing plot armor. And has bracers of DMPC.
This New York Times Best Seller shows realistic two-weapon fighting against multiple combatants.No faair he's wearing plot armor. And has bracers of DMPC.
DMPCs aren't necessarily bad. Running DMPCs is actually the one thing I'm really good at as a GM. It's all about making sure your character makes mistakes and gets things wrong, doesn't provide information every time the party needs it, and doesn't solve every puzzle or problem that the party faces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In game, my gnome invented the spork.
Mr. Fishy usually has a DMPC [3 player group] to pad out the group. Mostly a strong reversed fighter type or a comical rogue character...or a pet character, like an animal or a barbarian kolbold named Baby...that chewed on magic items. That little sucker was rabid. And he could growl I Luv U, or Maammmaaa...
Mr. Fishy would like a pet critter option. Not an animal companion or familiar but an animal that can level with the character like a cohort.
Spells without saves that have more than a one round effect or where you save and the effect lasts more than one round.
Physical damage output of martial characters. Giving archers the equivalent of power attack and two-weapon fighting without the drawbacks was pretty ridiculous. Two-hander fighters are still the kings of damage dealing far and above every other option except perhaps archery.
Barbarian rage powers that are so much better than other rage powers that taking them is a no brainer like Beast Totem line, Come and Get Me, and Superstition. Every barbarian even somewhat optimizere slots those in and then picks powers around them because they are so much better than everything else.
Not writing charge in such a way as to not make it possible to gain the benefits of charge (especially a lance charge) with each attack of a full attack.
Enforcer feat allowing someone to be shaken for 20 plus rounds with one intimdate check and the Sap Adept/Sap Master line taking advantage of this to ridiculous effect.
Not making non-magical fear effects like those from intimdate mind-effecting. I find it very difficult to explain how punching a zombie in the face somehow allows it to be initimdated.
Not including daze in immunity to stun. Daze is nearly the equivalent of stun and they toss in the Dazing Spell metamagic feat which allows a caster to pretty much end fights with one metamagic spell against everything. Nothing is immune to daze. What game designer allowed that to slip through the cracks without someone saying "Wait a minute. That's the best crowd control in the game since nothing is immune to it and you can use it with AoE spells."
Abilities that remove conditions like Resolve or Cleanse, yet those conditions don't allow their use like nauseate or daze. So what if you can remove those conditions on yourself if you can't take the necessary action to use your ability. Why even say an ability can remove a condition if you have made the action necessary to remove that condition on yourself impossible? Another example of a design decision that wasn't well thought out.
All this stuff has been brought to the attention of the game designers to give them a chance to make the game better and they are very slow to move on changes to these abiilties. If they don't catch the problem during the design process, I would at least like to see a game company that moves quickly to correct the problem once it is in play and has been brought to their attention. It is in the best interests of Paizo to make their game as playable as possible at all levels. What it leaves me to wonder is if design decisions are now being made by people too busy to play their own game, thus they don't see how something interacts with the various options in the game system to create a serious exploit in their rule system.
Not reworking the sneak attack ability so it doesn't become progressively more useless at high level once fortification armor, spells that negate crits, and powerful creatures that see through invisibility and concealment easily kick in. And making rogues with saves so weak that they pretty much are afraid of everything, die to every gaze attack, suffer every charm or dominate, and pretty much die easily at high level to the point where no one that wants to have a fun time will want to play them much past level 10.
3.5 and Pathfinder have always been about letting you design what kind of character you want to be. Roles were locked in hard in 2nd edition, and for those of us who like Pathfinder over 2nd that's the main reason why..
Interesting, that isn't the main reason, or even a reason with the players I play with. The main thing that is attractive for 3ed+ over earlier editions is the inclusion of table top tactics.
5'steps, flanking, casting in combat, attacks of opportunity etc made the combats more tactical and interesting.In general most tweaking to Player created character builds tends to increase the power disparity within the game between those who enjoy building characters and those who don't IMO.
Kelsey next to no one tries to attack two people at once. This is because people are just as effective at max health as they are at 1 health. It makes more sense to focus down a single target and kill him.
Kelsey next to no one tries to attack two people at once. This is because people are just as effective at max health as they are at 1 health. It makes more sense to focus down a single target and kill him.
My fellow players don't seem to have realized this.
Kelsey next to no one tries to attack two people at once. This is because people are just as effective at max health as they are at 1 health. It makes more sense to focus down a single target and kill him.My fellow players don't seem to have realized this.
They sound fun to play with. Lol.
Kelsey next to no one tries to attack two people at once. This is because people are just as effective at max health as they are at 1 health. It makes more sense to focus down a single target and kill him.My fellow players don't seem to have realized this.
Sounds like your friends still worship at the shrine of the Rule of Cool. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it does clash with more tactically minded players. Most of the friends I play with are tactically minded but there are a few who will go for cool over practical 9 times out of 10.
Really? That's how I usually see it used in any fight with more than one enemy. It's rather odd, though I suppose it could be imagined to look badass.All those examples are of people wielding two weapons against one target. I'm not talking about that. That's fairly realistic. What I'm talking about is the nonsense of some guy with two swords or two pistols fighting two guys at once. I see it in films all the time, and it's usually how I see the fighting style used in D&D, and it just isn't happening. Concentrating on one opponent is one thing, but on two simultaneously? No. Even IRL fighting styles that teach fighting multiple enemies teach you to go after one at a time.So what you're saying is... people play D&D and take one hand's attacks against one enemy and the other hand's attacks against a different enemy rather than focus fire on one until they're down?
I can honestly say I've never seen someone do that, and I've seen hundreds of 2WF characters across multiple editions.
Sorry Kelsey, I never saw a two-weapon fighter splitting his attacks on multiple targets (before his first target drops) in my games either.
Seen it once guy who dualweilded whips and used them to trip multiple people to set up the other melee for easier hits.
Seen it once guy who dualweilded whips and used them to trip multiple people to set up the other melee for easier hits.
He still trips them one after the other.
Yeah but its in the same round if he attacked the he is attacking one after another.
Horrible tactic but perfectly legal.
Was it effective?
Yeah for the most part but like i said he was just trying to keep them prone not damage them it made the barb and monk very happy though.
I might actually try that sometime, then.
It should work just fine as long as you fight medium sized or smaller humanoids that are not dwarfs and have only two legs.
I don't think I ever even considered using two weapon fighting against more than one opponent, it was always a more DPR thing for my group. Kelsey if they were only fighting one target, would you treat it with lesser penalties?
I'd handle it by the CRB, as fighting one target is the RAI.
I'd handle it by the CRB, as fighting one target is the RAI.
Hah! I'll ask here (as I have elsewhere) if anybody knows of a primer anywhere that explicates all the acronyms commonly used on these message boards. CRB, RAI, DPR, etc. (That last one stands for et cetera!)
Core Rulebook
Rule As Intended
Damage Per Round
|
I'd handle it by the CRB, as fighting one target is the RAI.Hah! I'll ask here (as I have elsewhere) if anybody knows of a primer anywhere that explicates all the acronyms commonly used on these message boards. CRB, RAI, DPR, etc. (That last one stands for et cetera!)
core rule book
Rules as intendedRAW-Rules as written
Damage per round