Hello! I want to discuss the possibility of balancing dual-wielding around making multiple attacks.
Personally, I just feel that dual-wielding is pointless in its current state as it is essentially equivalent to using a two-handed weapon(A part from having a spare one-handed weapon if the user is disarmed.)
My current thought process is this: Dual-wielding characters are allowed to make an additional, self-contained attack roll with Disadvantage for using their off-hand. Additionally, the user would no longer receive Advantage on their main attack roll.
All others rules for dual-wielding would more-or-less remain the same. Using the above as a home rule would allow for one separate attack per weapon and would sacrifice combat potency versus a single target for greater versatility and area of effect.
I’d like to use the same rules above for ranged weapons as well.
Any thoughts on how I could improve on this idea? This is my first time “putting it to paper,” so criticism is very much welcome.
Action economy is a huge thing in OL, having more actions shifts balance in encounters.
This is why it is so expensive to get extra actions any other way, both in feat point expense and in other costs (Fatigue + HP loss via battle trance and reckless attack, or lots of disadvantage from multi-attack and haste).
Simply allowing it b/c you are dual-wielding would be very unbalanced.
Weapons are meant to be little additives overall, with the main focus more on a character and their attributes (its why initially in the system there simply weren’t items at all as flavor wise everything was just done via attributes. Attributes represent how well/effective you use what you have).
The advantage of dual-wielding is certainly gaining the advantage of the attack, the advantage over two-handed is that you get access to more banes via the weapons you wield (if wielding differing weapons). In addition, the advantage of dual-wielding is when you get to higher WL and can afford to buy/make or if you find extraordinary weapons, you can get more (2 WL 4 weapons, each having differing things on them to make them WL 4, whereas with two-handed you only have one, and more limited in just a single WL 4).
This applies equally to ranged weapons (though of course you don’t gain dual-wielding advantage from ranged weapons). You do gain more narrative flexibility and the big rule of “what makes sense” if you have two in certain situations.
Basically, if you were wanting to do this, I woudl say make a feat, except one already exists, and dual-wielding grants advantage which counteracts some of the disadvantage from the feat allowing you to multi-attack in the first place.
I hadn’t considered the point about Banes, but it’s kinda moot if you intend to dual-wield multiple instances of the same item.
Your points about the Multi-Attack feat are well-made, I’ll admit I’d forgotten about it.
My main gripe is that I feel that applying advantage in the same way makes dual-wielding forgettable.(Which, while I understand more focus is put on the characters, but weapons very much are a part of a character, and the chosen configuration of weaponry can say a lot about an individual’s tastes and personality.) Perhaps a better way to go about what I want is to instead change the Advantage to apply to Banes rather than Damaging Attacks? In that way it might show dual-wielding to be more of a tricky way of fighting, well-suited to deception and tactical ploys rather than raw might and efficiency.
Advantage from dual wielding already grants its advantage to attacks (this means both damage and banes, if it says “damaging attacks” then it is only damage).
Also, remember that Narrative can always be your own. When you do an attack, you can easily describe it as using both blades, that’s OL, adding your own fluff/flavor to your actions.
If you are really wanting to have this in your game though, what you could do is a Perk: Dual-Attacks
That when you dual-wield, you have 1 less disadvantage from doing attacks with extra actions (Such as from Multi-Attack and Haste).
So someone with this Perk has the potential for more when doing multiple attacks. I doesn’t give 2 advantage (still 1 from regular dual-wielding), but in essence does if doing multi-attacks.
Though, this is fairly powerful still, and might should be behind a feat still (though 1 or 2 point feat).
Just depends on what you want for a focus on your campaign/setting.
Another way to make it more balanced is needing the Perk AND a property on the weapon (so the weapon needs both One-Handed Melee + Multi).
So a person with:
- Perk: Dual-Wielder
- Item with Properties: One-Handed Melee and Multi
gains 1 less disadvantage on Multi-attacks (either from feat or haste when doing attacks)
Thanks for the suggestion and clarification.
I thought that might be the case for Banes, but I assumed otherwise.
I’ll have to think on this some more when I have more time so I see what I can come up with.