Is 2 weapon fighting a thing?

[Crexis]

I bought my deluxe copy of the core rulebook today and going through it I haven't come across anything about 2 weapon fighting. I was thinking of possibly making a rogue character but would it have to be a single weapon, 1 hand free type of character?

Any insight appreciated

[HammerJack]

Having a weapon in each hand is something that anyone can do. Having two weapons, in and of itself, does not give you extra attacks. There are, however, class feats in a couple of classes (or accessible via multiclass) that use two weapons to make actions you could not normally take, like making an attack with each for only one action.

So, two weapon fighting exists as a concept that a character can realize, but you need to buy into it through class feats. What, exactly, you can do with two weapons depends on what class feats you buy in with. Check out at least the rogue, ranger and fighter feats, to see what's out there.

[Ventnor]

Rogues get a class feat, Twin Feint, that requires you to be wielding 2 weapons to use. And if you want even more feats that make dual-wielding better, you'll probably want to multiclass to fighter or ranger.

[Bardarok]

There is a slight benefit to having two different weapons though in that one of them can be agile which makes it better for follow up strikes.

Ex: Rapier & Shortsword
Attack one with rapier has deadly trait if you crit (most likely to crit on strike one as well)
Attack two with shortsword. No deadly trait but agile so -4 instead of -5 MAP.

[Claxon]

What Bardarok mentions is the only general benefit to two weapon fighting. And the cost of having two weapons I think eliminates that small benefit.

The rest of the benefit of two weapon fighting is now locked behind specific class abilities and isn't something that anyone can generically do to any efficiency.

I can't say I'm sad to see it mostly go away though.

[kitmehsu]

also the doubling ring lets you copy runes from one weapon to another, letting you focus on just putting runes on a single weapon

[WatersLethe]

Claxon wrote:

What Bardarok mentions is the only general benefit to two weapon fighting. And the cost of having two weapons I think eliminates that small benefit.

Well, don't forget damage type flexibility, which can be a big deal.

It's also a reduced vulnerability to a disarm or broken weapon.

But yeah, there's not a huge inherent benefit of wielding two weapons, even if one is agile.

[Claxon]

Damage type flexibility isn't a big deal, usually.

At least it wasn't in PF1. Few creatures had DR based on a specific damage type, and the play test didn't seem to make it more prevalent. So, in my experience thus far, it seems to remain mostly unimportant.

And while the doubling ring will let you do replicate your runes from one weapon to another the has a fixed gold cost and uses up an item slot.

So while the cost isn't as bad as it was in PF1, it still exists.

[Eltacolibre]

Reading the Bestiary for PF2, I see a lot more monsters with different weapon types resistance and vulnerability than the original bestiary of PF1.

It is somewhat more important but someone can probably still be fine using only one kind of weapon.

[Captain Morgan]

Resistance is now also a standard feature on Champions and Fighters, so if your DM pits up against anything with class levels it could become very relevant indeed.

There are other traits you could benefit from as well, such as using a Parry weapon in your offhand.

[graystone]

Claxon wrote:

Damage type flexibility isn't a big deal, usually.

With versatile weapons a thing, flexibility can be had with a single weapon for 2 types. Add a shield and you cover all 3 types easily.

Captain Morgan wrote:

There are other traits you could benefit from as well, such as using a Parry weapon in your offhand.

But for parry, you're using it more as a shield than actually attacking with it. A Main-gauche in an offhand for AC only isn't my idea of 2 weapon fighting.

[FitzTheRuke]

It jives pretty well with my idea of reality, IMO. (That 2WF is not particularly beneficial except with special training (feats) and most people are better off with a shield or wielding a single weapon in both hands.) Seems 'right' to me.

[Charlaquin]

graystone wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

There are other traits you could benefit from as well, such as using a Parry weapon in your offhand.

But for parry, you're using it more as a shield than actually attacking with it. A Main-gauche in an offhand for AC only isn't my idea of 2 weapon fighting.

That’s funny, because rapier and main-gauche is pretty much THE definitive two-weapon fighting technique. In real life, fighting with two weapons is relatively rare, and is most often done simply because carrying a shield or a two-handed weapon is impractical, but fighting styles that do involve the use of two weapons tend to focus on using one weapon offensively and one defensively (and changing up which is being used for which as the situation demands).

Ithink PF2 does a pretty good job of modeling reality with its rules for two-weapon fighting (or lack thereof). Whether or not modeling reality is a desirable goal in this instance is a matter of personal preference, but it seems to be the way they went with it here.

[citricking]

I was looking at a bunch paintings of an invading army from like 1500, and everyone was dual wielding swords. Thought that was cool.

I'm kinda sad they took out the +2 Ac if you use two non agile weapons from the fighter. Thought it was nice to have some benefit for that set up.

Currently there's not much for a two non agile weapon user. I think it would be good to have some benefit for using two of the same weapon.

[Narxiso]

Charlaquin wrote:

graystone wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

There are other traits you could benefit from as well, such as using a Parry weapon in your offhand.

But for parry, you're using it more as a shield than actually attacking with it. A Main-gauche in an offhand for AC only isn't my idea of 2 weapon fighting.

That’s funny, because rapier and main-gauche is pretty much THE definitive two-weapon fighting technique. In real life, fighting with two weapons is relatively rare, and is most often done simply because carrying a shield or a two-handed weapon is impractical, but fighting styles that do involve the use of two weapons tend to focus on using one weapon offensively and one defensively (and changing up which is being used for which as the situation demands).

Ithink PF2 does a pretty good job of modeling reality with its rules for two-weapon fighting (or lack thereof). Whether or not modeling reality is a desirable goal in this instance is a matter of personal preference, but it seems to be the way they went with it here.

I don’t play fantasy games for reality, however. This argument is one of my pet-peeves of ttrpgs. If everything was held to the same standards as people hold martial combat, the true-to-reality assumption, then there would not be wizards or alchemists, dragons, or extraplanar travel.

That is not to say that I don’t like that two weapon fighting requires feats; I’m more concerned that there are not better ones available specifically to rogues, but I’ll just take the ranger’s twin takedown for my character. I’d even be fine with a feat with an accuracy penalty for attacking with two weapons with single actions. Alas, that is probably fated not to be by those with more knowledge and experience on the subject.

[Narxiso]

Actually, I’d like to redact my last statement. I’m not really enjoying two-weapon fighting. It takes twice as much investment in actions and equipment to get it running. It just seems like an inferior option compared to archery, two-handed weapons, or sword-and-board.

[Vidmaster7]

Which is I guess realistic, I'm one of the few people I know that fence Florentine. Sword and board is for sure more popular. Still I would like to see some more support for two weapon. Maybe we will get some in later books.

[Paradozen]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Which is I guess realistic, I'm one of the few people I know that fence Florentine. Sword and board is for sure more popular. Still I would like to see some more support for two weapon. Maybe we will get some in later books.

I'm hoping we are some more TWF rogue support, the style is iconic to the class for me but I don't see much going on for them in-class.

[Bramble Knight]

I thought TWF looked pretty great on Fighter. Double Slice is amazing: beats flurry of blows IMO, and leads you to a pretty fun multi attack build. I'm definetly pondering a former Red Mantis trainee who uses Sawtoothed Sabres still.

It's a 1st level feat too: very accessible for multiclassing

[Saros Palanthios]

graystone wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

There are other traits you could benefit from as well, such as using a Parry weapon in your offhand.

But for parry, you're using it more as a shield than actually attacking with it. A Main-gauche in an offhand for AC only isn't my idea of 2 weapon fighting.

You can use it for both! 1st action: attack with rapier (to maximize damage potential), 2nd action: attack with main-gauche (to minimize MAP penalty), 3rd action: parry with main-gauche (for +1 AC until the start of your next turn).

[Saros Palanthios]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Which is I guess realistic, I'm one of the few people I know that fence Florentine. Sword and board is for sure more popular. Still I would like to see some more support for two weapon. Maybe we will get some in later books.

In real life, the dagger was mostly there to discourage your opponent from rushing you and going for a grapple or trip (or just stabbing your with their own dagger). having a short, handy blade in hand ready to shank anyone who got too close forced opponents to keep their distance and deal with your rapier point, instead of trying to get past it. that was the main advantage of rapier-and-dagger over rapier-and-buckler or single rapier, especially once rapiers started getting really long. of course you could also use the dagger for parrying or even attacking if circumstances called for it, but that wasn't its main purpose.

[Captain Morgan]

Narxiso wrote:

Actually, I’d like to redact my last statement. I’m not really enjoying two-weapon fighting. It takes twice as much investment in actions and equipment to get it running. It just seems like an inferior option compared to archery, two-handed weapons, or sword-and-board.

Doubling Rings basically eliminate the equipment cost and add the advantage of letting you swap out your secondary weapon with anything else.

The action cost is also non-existent to a quickdraw ranger. For fighters, if you carry one blade in exploration mode you are basically in the same boat as two handers. Those guys need to take a hand off every time they need to open a door or whatever, so either fighter winds up needing to spend an action to get ready in that case.

Archers and free handers don't have that problem, but often have to burn an action entering a stance anyway.

[Charlaquin]

Narxiso wrote:

Charlaquin wrote:

graystone wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

There are other traits you could benefit from as well, such as using a Parry weapon in your offhand.

But for parry, you're using it more as a shield than actually attacking with it. A Main-gauche in an offhand for AC only isn't my idea of 2 weapon fighting.

That’s funny, because rapier and main-gauche is pretty much THE definitive two-weapon fighting technique. In real life, fighting with two weapons is relatively rare, and is most often done simply because carrying a shield or a two-handed weapon is impractical, but fighting styles that do involve the use of two weapons tend to focus on using one weapon offensively and one defensively (and changing up which is being used for which as the situation demands).

Ithink PF2 does a pretty good job of modeling reality with its rules for two-weapon fighting (or lack thereof). Whether or not modeling reality is a desirable goal in this instance is a matter of personal preference, but it seems to be the way they went with it here.

I don’t play fantasy games for reality, however. This argument is one of my pet-peeves of ttrpgs. If everything was held to the same standards as people hold martial combat, the true-to-reality assumption, then there would not be wizards or alchemists, dragons, or extraplanar travel.

Right, which is why I noted that it’s a matter of preference whether or not you consider modeling reality here a desirable goal. Personally, I don’t really care about realism. I do like that the advantage of dual-wielding is in expanding your options than in granting additional attacks, but I would like to see more support for wielding a matched pair of weapons (as long as it doesn’t invalidate mismatched dual wielding). I also think the agile trait looks a little weak. Maybe if having an agile weapon in each hand reduced your MAP to -3 and -8, that could kill both birds with one house rule.

[JRutterbush]

citricking wrote:

I was looking at a bunch paintings of an invading army from like 1500, and everyone was dual wielding swords. Thought that was cool.

And "looking cool" is exactly why they painted it that way. Just like in modern times, artists are not generally known for knowing how actual warfare is done, and they take a lot of artistic license with their subject matter. Whoever painted that just thought dual-wielding soldiers looked cool, since a battlefield is the worst possible place to try to fight with two weapons instead of a weapon and shield, polearm, or full plate and a two-handed weapon.

[Wheldrake]

IIRC there are both fighter and ranger feats which further reduce MAP for dual wielding.

Also we will soon be getting the Swashbuckler class, which might also include dual-wielding goodies.