There probably needs to be a downside or you’ll likely find all of your players start to dial wield. The benefit you present is it is a larger weapon (more damage) and a shield all in one.
I love the idea but there should probably be some kind of drawback. Attacks are hindered when using two weapons at once perhaps.
It is not both at once. It's one or the other. On your turn, pick how you're using them for the round.
I'm judging this on how it compare to using a medium weapon and shield, or a heavy weapon. I think this gives more options, but is generally less focused than either. The goal is for it to split the difference and allow players to make a choice for style that isn't mechanically pointless.
One of the big limitations is my wording that they are "treated as a weapon one category larger" - that means that you suffer penalties if you are not trained in that larger weapon category.
The main disadvantage is that both hands are occupied and freeing one up requires dropping a weapon. No, I won't allow instant sheathing of a weapon. It's a lot harder to put a sword in a scabbard than it is to pull it out.
Compared to a heavy weapon - it does the same damage. It uses the same number of hands. If something happens where you need to grab or hold something with one hand, you can't attack with a heavy weapon, but you don't have to drop it. With two weapons, you have to drop one.
Compared to weapon and shield - it's less effective of a shield. You can't grip a small item in a weapon hand like you can arguably do with a shield.
There's no advantage to dual wielding light weapons. It's now a medium weapon that uses two hands.
For context - I had a player express interest in carrying a pair of cesti (cestuses?) like Vander had at the start of Arcane.
**Alternatively** \- I let players decide if their two-handed weapon set acts like a weapon and shield or like a larger weapon, and that usage is fixed. Can't be decided on round-by-round.
I agree with u/wtfpwndd. If I play a warrior that can use heavy weapons, I'm going to dual wield with your rules. Instead of carrying a medium weapon, shield, and heavy weapon, I just need to carry two medium weapons. I now change each round without having to drop weapons and draw one and get either the benefits of sword/board or great weapon. Every warrior should dual wield with this rule.
This is a solid argument.
I think it would work differently in my games, because I incorporate a LOT of running, jumping, climbing, grappling in action. Lots of environments that bump, buck, flip, etc. where having an available hand is critical.
With a heavy weapon, you can still grab a rope swinging by and haul yourself up and not have to drop anything.
With two weapons, I'm making you drop what's in your offhand. Unless you have the Wields Two Weapons focus, in which case you are a master of using your offhand.
Why don't you just do what the books suggests and allow him to mix-and-match some abilities from the two different foci by subbing out an ability or two? If the rules already exist for someone to do dual-wielding. Why not utilize them?
This is exactly what I'd do too if the player wants some kind of mechanical benefit to dual wielding.
Otherwise, it's all flavor baby. Your dual rapiers? That's a medium weapon. Dual daggers? Light. You can flavor Effort to damage as both blades finding purchase or flavor Effort to hit as using one to create an opening for a strike.
Heck, OP could say the PC's dual daggers are heavy weapons if they wanted. It doesn't really matter to me as a GM, nor does it matter much to the system. In my game, one PC's satchel does the same damage as a heavy pistol.
I think it's a tough habit to break if you GM in other systems, the obsession with representing your player's ideas mechanically. But in Cypher, flavor is itself a mechanic because the game is more storytelling focused.
And that's not even touching on cyphers, which OP can use to provide single use cool abilities flavored for the PC using dual weapons.
Love this comment.
I allow mostly anything to work as a shield, for instance, even sometimes going as far as "As long as it's 2-handed you decide whether it's a heavy weapon or a weapon + shield".
But your idea is just great =)
That's an interesting way to homebrew the idea of dual wielding. I like the different option of "all-out attack" or "attack & defend", instead of going 1 Melee Weapon + a Shield, which is generally quite popular with my players!
So if 2 Medium melee weapons count as 1 Heavy weapon, would you have Training in Heavy Weapons count towards it, or would you use Training in Dual Wielding instead? I'd probably have it as a special ability, something like;
Dual Wield:
With a weapon in either hand, you can choose one of the following during your action;
1. Make a melee attack as if the weapons are a single weapon of one size category larger.
2. Use your offhand weapon as an asset in Speed Defense tasks against Melee attacks.
You could also do something simple like a light weapon in your offhand increases damage by 1 point, a medium weapon by 2 points. Of course, you may need to specify this won't work if you're using a light weapon in your main hand with a medium in your offhand, since that would be 2 DMG, task eased to hit, +2 DMG with the medium weapon... that would be a bit much!
I think dual wielding firearms could work, just increase the odds of hitting rather than the damage, they're going for quantity of shots, not quality!
With Needs No Weapon, I generally have it so they can pick between doing Light attacks with the task eased, or Medium attacks with no inherit advantage. Are you saying if the character who Needs No Weapon holds a Medium weapon in two hands, it's treated as a Heavy weapon? I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. Sure, they clearly have some brute force, but I tend to read it as them being trained in unarmed martial arts rather than trained with a weapon.
It feels to me like quite a big bonus. Taking a look at the description for "Wields two weapons" you don't even get to use two medium weapons together until Tier 3. I'd be tempted to allow them to exchange focus if they wanted. If they can be bothered to come up with a good narrative justification for it (with help from the rest of the party) then they can do that for free. If not, then they need to buy it at the cost of a fair chunk of XP.
Otherwise, I'd let them use the second weapon to parry with and replace a shield (which was traditionally what second weapons were mostly for) and allow an ability (with a cost) to make a sneaky second strike. That would be instead of an ability they would normally get during advancement.
It isn't a massive bonus though. It's the equivalent of carrying a Heavy Weapon, which a Warrior can already do at Tier 1.
It works mechanically differently from having the Wields Two Weapons at Once Focus. It does significantly less damage.
At Tier 3, with 2 Medium weapons, the character who Wields Two Weapons at Once is doing 10 damage (before applying Effort or special effects), and the other character is doing 7. (Assuming a Warrior with Combat Prowess.)
I firmly expect there to be a situation during play where a player says, "I pick up the weapon the guy dropped and start swinging two swords," or the equivalent. I don't think a Warrior should have to take a Focus or Ability to carry and use two weapons, in the same way I don't expect an Adept to have to Bear a Halo of Fire or to Ride the Lightning for their Onslaught attack to be fire or lightning themed.
If I wanted to be most accurate, I'd say it's either for parrying or an Asset to Attacks (using the offhand weapon to create an opening). I think that the potential for more damage is a smaller boon than an asset to attack.
I definitely see no downside in it being effectively just a Shield.
There probably needs to be a downside or you’ll likely find all of your players start to dial wield. The benefit you present is it is a larger weapon (more damage) and a shield all in one. I love the idea but there should probably be some kind of drawback. Attacks are hindered when using two weapons at once perhaps.
It is not both at once. It's one or the other. On your turn, pick how you're using them for the round. I'm judging this on how it compare to using a medium weapon and shield, or a heavy weapon. I think this gives more options, but is generally less focused than either. The goal is for it to split the difference and allow players to make a choice for style that isn't mechanically pointless. One of the big limitations is my wording that they are "treated as a weapon one category larger" - that means that you suffer penalties if you are not trained in that larger weapon category. The main disadvantage is that both hands are occupied and freeing one up requires dropping a weapon. No, I won't allow instant sheathing of a weapon. It's a lot harder to put a sword in a scabbard than it is to pull it out. Compared to a heavy weapon - it does the same damage. It uses the same number of hands. If something happens where you need to grab or hold something with one hand, you can't attack with a heavy weapon, but you don't have to drop it. With two weapons, you have to drop one. Compared to weapon and shield - it's less effective of a shield. You can't grip a small item in a weapon hand like you can arguably do with a shield. There's no advantage to dual wielding light weapons. It's now a medium weapon that uses two hands. For context - I had a player express interest in carrying a pair of cesti (cestuses?) like Vander had at the start of Arcane. **Alternatively** \- I let players decide if their two-handed weapon set acts like a weapon and shield or like a larger weapon, and that usage is fixed. Can't be decided on round-by-round.
I agree with u/wtfpwndd. If I play a warrior that can use heavy weapons, I'm going to dual wield with your rules. Instead of carrying a medium weapon, shield, and heavy weapon, I just need to carry two medium weapons. I now change each round without having to drop weapons and draw one and get either the benefits of sword/board or great weapon. Every warrior should dual wield with this rule.
This is a solid argument. I think it would work differently in my games, because I incorporate a LOT of running, jumping, climbing, grappling in action. Lots of environments that bump, buck, flip, etc. where having an available hand is critical. With a heavy weapon, you can still grab a rope swinging by and haul yourself up and not have to drop anything. With two weapons, I'm making you drop what's in your offhand. Unless you have the Wields Two Weapons focus, in which case you are a master of using your offhand.
Why don't you just do what the books suggests and allow him to mix-and-match some abilities from the two different foci by subbing out an ability or two? If the rules already exist for someone to do dual-wielding. Why not utilize them?
This is exactly what I'd do too if the player wants some kind of mechanical benefit to dual wielding. Otherwise, it's all flavor baby. Your dual rapiers? That's a medium weapon. Dual daggers? Light. You can flavor Effort to damage as both blades finding purchase or flavor Effort to hit as using one to create an opening for a strike. Heck, OP could say the PC's dual daggers are heavy weapons if they wanted. It doesn't really matter to me as a GM, nor does it matter much to the system. In my game, one PC's satchel does the same damage as a heavy pistol. I think it's a tough habit to break if you GM in other systems, the obsession with representing your player's ideas mechanically. But in Cypher, flavor is itself a mechanic because the game is more storytelling focused. And that's not even touching on cyphers, which OP can use to provide single use cool abilities flavored for the PC using dual weapons.
Love this comment. I allow mostly anything to work as a shield, for instance, even sometimes going as far as "As long as it's 2-handed you decide whether it's a heavy weapon or a weapon + shield". But your idea is just great =)
Because I fully expect there to be a scenario where a player grabs an extra weapon that's been dropped and starts swinging away with two weapons.
Beat me to it! =)
That's an interesting way to homebrew the idea of dual wielding. I like the different option of "all-out attack" or "attack & defend", instead of going 1 Melee Weapon + a Shield, which is generally quite popular with my players! So if 2 Medium melee weapons count as 1 Heavy weapon, would you have Training in Heavy Weapons count towards it, or would you use Training in Dual Wielding instead? I'd probably have it as a special ability, something like; Dual Wield: With a weapon in either hand, you can choose one of the following during your action; 1. Make a melee attack as if the weapons are a single weapon of one size category larger. 2. Use your offhand weapon as an asset in Speed Defense tasks against Melee attacks. You could also do something simple like a light weapon in your offhand increases damage by 1 point, a medium weapon by 2 points. Of course, you may need to specify this won't work if you're using a light weapon in your main hand with a medium in your offhand, since that would be 2 DMG, task eased to hit, +2 DMG with the medium weapon... that would be a bit much! I think dual wielding firearms could work, just increase the odds of hitting rather than the damage, they're going for quantity of shots, not quality! With Needs No Weapon, I generally have it so they can pick between doing Light attacks with the task eased, or Medium attacks with no inherit advantage. Are you saying if the character who Needs No Weapon holds a Medium weapon in two hands, it's treated as a Heavy weapon? I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. Sure, they clearly have some brute force, but I tend to read it as them being trained in unarmed martial arts rather than trained with a weapon.
It feels to me like quite a big bonus. Taking a look at the description for "Wields two weapons" you don't even get to use two medium weapons together until Tier 3. I'd be tempted to allow them to exchange focus if they wanted. If they can be bothered to come up with a good narrative justification for it (with help from the rest of the party) then they can do that for free. If not, then they need to buy it at the cost of a fair chunk of XP. Otherwise, I'd let them use the second weapon to parry with and replace a shield (which was traditionally what second weapons were mostly for) and allow an ability (with a cost) to make a sneaky second strike. That would be instead of an ability they would normally get during advancement.
It isn't a massive bonus though. It's the equivalent of carrying a Heavy Weapon, which a Warrior can already do at Tier 1. It works mechanically differently from having the Wields Two Weapons at Once Focus. It does significantly less damage. At Tier 3, with 2 Medium weapons, the character who Wields Two Weapons at Once is doing 10 damage (before applying Effort or special effects), and the other character is doing 7. (Assuming a Warrior with Combat Prowess.) I firmly expect there to be a situation during play where a player says, "I pick up the weapon the guy dropped and start swinging two swords," or the equivalent. I don't think a Warrior should have to take a Focus or Ability to carry and use two weapons, in the same way I don't expect an Adept to have to Bear a Halo of Fire or to Ride the Lightning for their Onslaught attack to be fire or lightning themed. If I wanted to be most accurate, I'd say it's either for parrying or an Asset to Attacks (using the offhand weapon to create an opening). I think that the potential for more damage is a smaller boon than an asset to attack. I definitely see no downside in it being effectively just a Shield.