combat rules in the future?? and number of items

[Gilibran]

My apolygies if this subject has already been discussed and i\'m starting it again.

I have this odd feelling when i see people running around with two longswords (or two battle axes like myself at the moment )

I think it should be possible but would\'nt it be logicall if there was an Ambidextrious skill for it. I don\'t know if it still has to be implemented, if so consider this topic not here.

But to give an example i\'ve been playing the best RPG around (WFRP) for over 16 year\'s now. It took me ten years of monthly sessions to have my Dwarf and Elf character master the Ambidextrious skill and even then neither off them could fight with two longswords or two Battle axes. because a longsword and battle axe are just to clumsy even in a fantasy setting. With short swords or special small battle axes no problem, they cut up an orc in the blink of an eye.

What\'s the opinion on this matter from the rest of you, just curious.

and then one more, holding items, and then specifically the number of items you can hold vs endurance. there was some discusion about it before so i heard, anyone got a link to the topic?

[Bannin]

whats WFRP?

[Gilibran]

Warhammer Fantasy RolePlay, the old fashioned way of roleplaying with pencil and dice

Only the older you get the less time you and you\'re friends have so you turn you\'re attention to MMORPGS wich gives you the opportunity to play when you have the time for it but that\'s not an answer to my question :biggrin:

[Icefalcon]

It will be changed eventually. In my opinion, there should even be a \"two handed\" skill.

[Moogie]

Um... that\'s what Ambidexterous means, Ice.

[glenduil]

Ambidexterous is that you fight with two weapons and two handed is that you fight with one weapon wich needs two hands to handle.
Now you got me doubting.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by Gilibran
the best RPG around (WFRP)

:tup:

Hmm well dual longswords should be possible, especially for ynnwns or krans.
Although ambidextrious skill should require lots of training + practice points.
However someone with such skill should be doing quite well for both blocking (well not as good as with shield, but still) and attacking.

[Merdarion]

Well I used to play DSA, a german PnP RPG, and there you had a nasty skill called \"linksh?ndig\" which means as much as lefthand, you were only able to rise it ones (having 3 level-up rolls) and it just made able to use your weapon also left orientated, after reaching level 16 (The third highest level), you gained the ability of using two weapons (most likely a longsword + dagger or two shorswords

[WizardsRule]

This is through a roleplayers point of view.  OK, you have decided you are going out to embark on a quest to do whatever the site has planed and yet you can already wield dual weapons??? Where is the logic? Instead you should start out with a blade or a dagger and work your way up.  If you choose not to, then your attacks should have a penalty along with accracy.  Something should be done atleast.

[Samoth]

The penalty is that you can not use a shield.  It seems to me that currently two weapons increase the number of attacks.  But I would appreciate it if those more knowledgeable correct me.

How about if multi-weapon or ambidextrous skill allows the second weapon to increase the player\'s armor by acting as a partial shield.

And as Gilibran says this should probably be limited to shorter or otherwise more mobile weapons.

[Gilibran]

Not to get all technical and stuff, but when fighting with two weapons it \'does not give you more armor as apposed to a shield but you can parry you\'re opponents strikes more \"easily\" and seize the oppurtunity to do damage with the other weapon you\'re holding when a gap appears in his defence.

Though you could argue that the same counts for a shield but it\'s much slower and clumsier to try and hit you\'re opponent with it say under the chin or so wich is one off the few places you can reach you\'re opponent at with a shield to do effective damage.

so bassicialy it does\'nt give you more armor nor more attacks but a bigger chance off hitting you\'re opponent and doing damage.

[Uyaem]

I don\'t remember whether it was D&D 3rd edition or Midgard 2nd/3rd edition, it was a D20 system in any case (And yes, D20 systems were there before \"Wizards Of The Coast\" \"invented\" it .. anyway, not going to rant...)

Anyway, it does have a skill called \"Two-weapon-fighting\" and a skill (or feat respectively) called \"Ambidexterity/Ambidextrous\". The penalty system is balanced, depending on which of the skills you have. Ambidexterity means that you can fight equally well with either of your hands but doesn\'t mean you can wield to weapons at the same time. So it went something like this:

Standard fighting: +/- 0
Standard fighting (with the off hand): -4
Standard fighting (with the off hand + Ambidexterity): +/- 0 (since there is no \"off hand\".

Two weapon fighting: -6 / -10  (\"normal\" hand / off hand)
Two weapon fighting (with Ambidexterity): -6 / -6
Two weapon fighting (with Two-Weapon-Fighting): -2 / -6
Two weapon fighting (with Two-Weapon-Fighting + Ambidexterity): -2 / -2

You can easily do the math (ambidexterity emilinates a 4 point penalty for the \"off hand\", two-weapon-fighting emilinates 4 points for each hand, since it reflects your ability to combat with two weapons).

I always liked the 2-folded way this was made up, and also that no matter how good you were you still get a minor penalty. Also, now after I\'ve written it all down, the values aren\'t really the correct ones you also could get an advantage/disadvantage when the weapon in your off hand was a small one (like a dagger or short sword).

I\'m not saying PS should have such a system as well, I merely meant to write down how others solved this, perhaps someone has an idea derived from that, or even improving it.

[Darakus]

Amidextry means you have no main hand and as such in its absence when fighting using two weapons you should only be penalised if the weapon present in your off hand required the skill of a main hand.

For example for a right hander a long sword in the left hand would be penalising but a dagger would not unless it was the main weapon as less is required from the secondary weapon.

Now for the comment about shield fighting being less efficient in dealing damage : I definitely do not agree with this, shield fighting is for strong characters and uses ramming as well as other tactics to gain an advantage (like pikes on the shield and so on).  It is a different way of fighting but certainly not a less efficient one.

[Icefalcon]

Ambidexterity means that you can fight equally well with either of your hands but doesn\'t mean you can wield to weapons at the same time.

Thats what I always thought it was. Being both right and left-handed.

Being able to weild dual swords is slightly different.

[Gilibran]

agree that it\'s slightly different and more complicated, but if you\'re going to wield two weapons at the same time you better be knowing what the other hand does. So it\'s the basic skill you would at least need to be able to fight with two weapons. And I think ambidextrous is the easiest way to let you be able too handle 2 weapons at the same time. It takes constant training to keep the skill up.

@Darakus you\'re right about the shield fighting, i have no experience with that trough Live-rp or something, but i think that it is more clumsy, and a more last resort way off fighting. But correct me if i\'m wrong.