Two-handed weapon fighting vs dual-weapon-wielding fighting issue

[MrFix]

Plane,

You're confusing Off-Hand Weapon Training with Dual-Weapon Attack.

It's the OHWT that got reduced to a perk. DWA is still a hard technique across the system.

[Kromm]

As others have said, one problem here is that at equal skill, being fully effective with two weapons means the character in question has spent 6 more points than one who is fully effective with a single two-handed weapon, because they've spent 5 points to buy Dual-Weapon Attack up to full skill and another point on the Off-Hand Weapon Training perk. For instance:

Melee Weapon (A) DX [2], Dual-Weapon Attack (H) MW+0 [5], OHWT [1]. 8 points.

vs.

Melee Weapon (A) DX [2]. 2 points.

Alternatively, at equal points, the two-handed weapon user has a level or two more skill. For instance:

Melee Weapon (A) DX [2], Dual-Weapon Attack (H) MW+0 [5], OHWT [1]. 8 points.

vs.

Melee Weapon (A) DX+2 [8]. 8 points.

In the first case, you kind of expect the two-handed weapon user to be less effective – they're a less-powerful character, after all! in the second, that fighter has a better attack, parry, etc. and won't fall to a feint easily or at all.

In either case, assuming equal ST, there's also the fact that the dual-weapon fighter will be doing one or two points of damage less per attack, which in a fight with armor can mean not even inflicting injury. In the specific case of a two-handed weapon with a "U" on Parry vs. a pair of one-handed weapons without, we're looking at a three- or four-point difference in damage. Note that this is regardless of skill or points, so in addition to being either higher-powered or less skilled than the two-handed weapon user, the dual-weapon user always has a disadvantage in armored combat.

(In unarmored combat, where damage translates directly into injury, a dual-weapon fighter will be making more attacks and perhaps be able to compensate . . . but nobody using a two-handed weapon with a "U" on Parry should be running around without armor. Such weapons – polearms, warhammers, two-handed flails, etc. – are "can openers." They are wielded by people in cans, against people in cans. If you're using such a thing unarmored, that's your problem! The idea is that you wear enough armor to rely on DR, not parrying or a shield, to survive.)

Moreover, there's the question of cash budget. One two-handed sword costs less than two one-handed swords. One polearm, maul, or whatever costs a lot less than two one-handed swords. Here again, regardless of whether they're worth more points or less skilled than the two-handed weapon user, the dual-weapon user always has a disadvantage: They have to spend more money. The two-handed weapon user can invest that cash in the armor I just talked about. Or, assuming points are exchanged for cash or spent on Wealth, the two-handed weapon user should either be even more skilled (because they're spending fewer points to have gear), or else really not expected to win (because they're even less powerful . . .).

Finally, there's the matter of reach. On average, one-handed weapon users are limited to reach C and 1, plus a couple of reach 2 weapons. Two-handed weapon users start at reach 2, can get up to reach 3 with little difficulty, and can mess around with reach 4+ pikes and elongated polearms if they really, really want. This can make it difficult for the dual-weapon fighter to get close, if the two-handed weapon fighter constantly retreats when defending and steps back when attacking.

Of course, it's true that the two-handed weapon user will have an active defense disadvantage, but even that needs to be seen in a suitable light: If they retreat, it counts against all of the dual-weapon user's attacks, not just one of them. If they're dodging to avoid having to parry (which is a problem with Parry "U" weapons), that's a big +3 to both dodges. That should go a decent way toward equalizing matters, and it plays up the reach advantage, where present.

Ultimately, I think it's important to look at fighters on equal ground:

8 points spent on Melee Weapon (A) DX [2], Dual-Weapon Attack (H) MW+0 [5], and OHWT [1]
$1,000 spent on two $400 to $500 swords doing around swing+1 at reach 1, and $0 to $200 of armor covering part of the body with DR 1 or 2

vs.

8 points spent on Melee Weapon (A) DX+2 [8]
$1,000 spent on a $150 polearm doing around swing+5 at reach 3, and $850 of armor covering most of the body with DR 3 or 4

If you give the first fighter extra cash for weapons and armor, be sure to give the second one extra cash for even heavier armor . . . Alternatively, insist that the first fighter trade points for cash, and give the second fighter the same number of extra points to use for more skill or better gear. If you're not being even-handed like this, then of course you don't expect the fighter with fewer points and/or less cash to win or even have a fair fight!

[Plane]

Originally Posted by MrFix

You're confusing Off-Hand Weapon Training with Dual-Weapon Attack. It's the OHWT that got reduced to a perk. DWA is still a hard technique across the system.

Yes, can see that now.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

Definitely upgrade to Dwarven.
.

As an alternative they could sue outright Magic. It's not clear in the RAW if any Enchantment removes the Parry U limit but I belive we eventually decided that Quick-Draw of the cheaper Graceful weapon would do that as well as the separate "becomes Unready after every Attack" problem.

In 3e you could also reduce Readying times if you had ST 5 pts above MinSt but that went away in 4e. It did however help out very strong characters and introduce some weapon diversity in 3e and could becoem a House Rule.

[Kromm]

The Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game made the common house rule for Graceful Weapon official. From Exploits, p. 79:

[...] the weapon can attack and parry every turn – ignore "U" on its Parry stat and unreadying due to ‡ on its ST stat.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Kromm

of course you don't expect the fighter with fewer points and/or less cash to win or even have a fair fight!

I'd even go one step further, and point out that there's no reason to expect two different fighters to have a 50-50 chance of winning a fight against any possible opponent, just because they had the same point and cash budget. That's a nice gamist ideal. But there's no guarantee that the styles and tactics that one weapon is suited for are necessarily evenly matched against others. GURPS has enough realism as well as important enough tactics that simply comparing points spent isn't a great measure of how equal a fight is going to be.

The sniper with 4 points in Guns (Rifle) on a rooftop down the street is going to take out the dual-wielder no matter how good they are against the 2H swordsman -- even with substantially fewer points spent on ST and HT. Start them both off in a mega-megahex room and Mr. Sniper isn't likely to survive to carve another notch on his rifle butt.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

I'd even go one step further, and point out that there's no reason to expect two different fighters to have a 50-50 chance of winning a fight against any possible opponent, just because they had the same point and cash budget.

You are absolutely right, of course. The extreme case would be something like an accountant with X points and $Y worth of computers vs. a killer with X points and $Y worth of combat gear – but even if we limit ourselves to just fighters, there are endless roles, including ranged vs. melee (as in your example), melee armed vs. melee unarmed, melee damage-dealer vs. finesse fighter vs. tank, and all manner of specialists in fighting lone individuals, groups, opponents who don't defend (e.g., berserkers and zombies), opponents with huge defenses, armored foes, unarmored foes, etc., not to mention "fighters" who plan on attacking by surprise. I'd imagine that someone who's really good with a heavy, two-handed weapon would enjoy a lot more success vs. massively armored foes, inanimate objects, and sentries who have to be one-shotted by the first attack.

GURPS definitely doesn't use points or cash to finely balance combat ability in an arena. It's an RPG. Both of those currencies can be spent on so many things that you can't even say what's "fair" until you've looked at a few thousand sample situations, not all of them involving combat or even action.

[AlexanderHowl]

A Two-Handed Axe/Mace wielder should probably use a combination of Wait and Spin Attack against a DWA fighter. For example, let us give her ST 14 [40], DX 14 [80], Weapon Mastery (Great Axe) [20], and Two-Handed Axe/Mace (A) DX+10 [40]. If we also give her Technique Mastery (Spin Attack) [1] and Spin Attack (H) Two-Handed Axe/Mace+4 [7], she is capable of doing a Spin Attack at an effective skill 26 against a leg by using a Committed Attack.

At that point, an opponent with a skill of 20, will suffer an average of a -6 to their defenses. If she is using a fine great axe, she is capable of dealing 2d+9 cutting damage to her target, an average of 17 cutting damage, meaning that she will deal 10 points of damage past heavy plate armor, crippling any character with less than 20 HP. Her Wait will interrupt their attack against her, meaning that she will hit first.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

A Two-Handed Axe/Mace wielder should probably use a combination of Wait and Spin Attack against a DWA fighter. For example, let us give her ST 14 [40], DX 14 [80], Weapon Mastery (Great Axe) [20], and Two-Handed Axe/Mace (A) DX+10 [40]. If we also give her Technique Mastery (Spin Attack) [1] and Spin Attack (H) Two-Handed Axe/Mace+4 [7], she is capable of doing a Spin Attack at an effective skill 26 against a leg by using a Committed Attack.

At that point, an opponent with a skill of 20, will suffer an average of a -6 to their defenses. If she is using a fine great axe, she is capable of dealing 2d+9 cutting damage to her target, an average of 17 cutting damage, meaning that she will deal 10 points of damage past heavy plate armor, crippling any character with less than 20 HP. Her Wait will interrupt their attack against her, meaning that she will hit first.

Having markedly higher skill (+4, before taking into account Spin Attack*) than your foe is a pretty big advantage, obviously, but I think OP was thinking about characters who were a little closer. Wait is indeed a good option, of course, as it lets the character make better use of their likely-superior reach. Similarly, the Dual Weapon Defense Technique (I think that’s the name, no book access currently) implies you can defend against both attacks of a DWA at once, so you could theoretically use a Stop Hit to allow attacking and defending at the same time (which explicitly allows one to bypass ParryU IIRC without needing Defensive Attack), although that certainly isn’t without risk (although heavy armor mitigates that).

*Spin Attack is also something that’s only reliably useful if your effective skill with it outclasses your foe’s skill, and even then it’s of dubious use. In your example, the character’s base skill of 24 is enough to target the leg and still be guaranteed to impose -3 to defense on a 16- (-2 leg, -6 deceptive, for final skill 16), and a different investment of the [8] spent on Spin Attack can narrow things further).

[Rolando]

A fighter like that should be wearing armor and have some points in brawling to make a tackle or two.

If better skilled a turn at all out attack with a feint and attack at a limb (or a feint and a deceptive attack at a limb if skill is high enough) will end the fight fast. Stunning the opponent (as a two handed unbalanced weapon will surely cripple the limb) will make the following turn a repeat of the same, feint and attack or feint and deceptive attack to finish the target, or cripple the other limb, then finish the target after a turn of gloating.