Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:31 pm**

I recently picked up Palladium Fantasy Second Edition, and I really like it so far. I;m a little concerned about the WP: Paired Weapons skill. It seems a bit overpowered, due to the way Simultaneous Attacks work. But, I don't want to eliminate it entirely, as I have always been a fan of Two Weapon Fighting builds in D7D, like the Rogue and Rangers. I was thinking of just eliminating the Simultaneous attack maneuver... you still get the simultaneous strike ability, and the multiple opponent Parry ability, but there just won't be any simultaneous attacks in the game. What do others think? Is it just fine as it is written? Do you have other suggestions to tweak it?

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:22 pm**

Paired is really powerful, and is likely the best way to fight. One way to tweek it is to allow the attacker (i.e the person getting counter attacked), the option to abandon their attack for a defense (since the counter caused a lost attack), or if they have a shield, to parry normally without dropping their attack. Dropping it entirely is another good option. Bringing weapon ranges into the game also can balance it, by not allowing smaller weapons to counter attack longer reaching weapons, like spears and pole arms.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:35 pm**

That's a good idea... you can't do a simultaneous attack & parry against a weapon with reach. Nice one!

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:02 pm**

Mediapig71 wrote:That's a good idea... you can't do a simultaneous attack & parry against a weapon with reach. Nice one!

No need to thank me, idea was inspired by one of the PB's folks (Eric I think) in a Rifter that actually brought in weapon's reaches that I adapted to mine in a very clunky and complex way, but it was neat and works well.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:06 pm**

For what it's worth, I don't see anything as overpowered. Paired weapons is a skill that represents training, like any other. Not using it as written (to me) would be like banning Martial Arts because it's more powerful than Hand to Hand: Basic.... The only disadvantage in the skill is if your character decides to do a twin strike they lose their automatic parry until their next attack. For double the damage though, that's a fair trade..

As a G.M., it's not up to me to try to kill the characters or even defeat them, it's up to me to provide them with challenges that help the characters grow while making a kick@$$ story. So if the want Paired Weapons, I let them have it and am sure to throw plenty of baddies at them for the use of the skill.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:26 pm**

The problem is that it more than doubles damage, and the simo attack is assured damage for the most part, to the point the only way to deal with fighting against Paired Weapons, is to use Paired Weapons, which is what makes it 'over powered', or rather, unbalancing. It is strictly better than using a two handed weapon, and better than using a Shield as an off handed weapon. And I'd like as a player, and as a GM, for my players, to be able to effectively bring a fighting style that fits their character. Of course, two handers swing back into favor with Barbarians. Since they can dual wield them.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:38 am**

I agree with the above. That's why I thought the simplest thing might be to just eliminate simo attacks... I've never really liked that rule anyway, and we rarely used them in out HU games.

I suppose I could go the D20 route, as assign a penalty for the offhand attack as well... As they stand now, Dual weapons are overwhelmingly better than any other option, and using simo attack, if you hit, you are guaranteed to cause damage against any single weapon wielding target. There is no defense, unless everyone starts wielding paired weapons.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:59 am**

Mediapig71 wrote:...I suppose I could go the D20 route, as assign a penalty for the offhand attack as well... As they stand now, Dual weapons are overwhelmingly better than any other option, and using simo attack, if you hit, you are guaranteed to cause damage against any single weapon wielding target. There is no defense, unless everyone starts wielding paired weapons.

The Paired Weapons simul is the equivalent of an "Attack of Opportunity" in D20...

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:15 pm**

MADMANMIKE wrote:
Mediapig71 wrote:...I suppose I could go the D20 route, as assign a penalty for the offhand attack as well... As they stand now, Dual weapons are overwhelmingly better than any other option, and using simo attack, if you hit, you are guaranteed to cause damage against any single weapon wielding target. There is no defense, unless everyone starts wielding paired weapons.

The Paired Weapons simul is the equivalent of an "Attack of Opportunity" in D20...

No it's not. You don't get an Attack of Opportunity for an opponent attacking you (barring lack of weapons training). Paired weapons does not allow you to attack someone carelessly disengaging you or casting a spell. They have no similar attributes really.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:55 pm**

The way I read it, Simo attack means you both attack each other at the same time... neither side can parry, so unless either of you roll under 4, both attacks will hit and do damage.

Now, add in Paired Weapons.... If I am wielding Paired Weapons, and my opponent is not, I can simo attack against him, still parry his simo attack (thus removing the only drawback of simo attacks) but he cannot parry me.

Therefore, I can just simo attack him every round... I can parry all his blows, but I am almost guaranteed to hit and damage him. He has no defense unless he also has paired weapons.

This is the aspect that bothers me.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:58 pm**

Mediapig71 wrote:I recently picked up Palladium Fantasy Second Edition, and I really like it so far. I;m a little concerned about the WP: Paired Weapons skill. It seems a bit overpowered, due to the way Simultaneous Attacks work. But, I don't want to eliminate it entirely, as I have always been a fan of Two Weapon Fighting builds in D7D, like the Rogue and Rangers. I was thinking of just eliminating the Simultaneous attack maneuver... you still get the simultaneous strike ability, and the multiple opponent Parry ability, but there just won't be any simultaneous attacks in the game. What do others think? Is it just fine as it is written? Do you have other suggestions to tweak it?

Paired weapons is a powerful skill, but there's nothing wrong with it from my perspective. I think a lot of the fear of it comes from not using logic with it for things like weapon length, weight, angles, and opponent stats. Simultaneous Strike is useful in exactly one situation - a person with two small weapons (since they must be one handed) getting attacked by a person with one small weapon (meaning they have to get close enough that you can hit them back).

Things to remember:
- People can't dual wield 2h weapons. Those big high-damage swords and such take both hands, period. It isn't just a matter of strength, it's a matter of technique - fighting with a two-handed sword involves both hands on the weapon. Here's one of many good sample vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iocF2QmyoGo

- Just because a person knows how to wield two weapons at once, doesn't mean they're strong enough to wield two full size longswords or battle axes or what have you. Now maybe they are, but if they have an average P.S. it's going to be very hard. I'm an average guy, and I can tell you from experience that wielding a longsword one-handed is exhausting and difficult. Traditional dual-wielding involved a lightweight main blade like a sidesword, and a small offhand weapon like a main-gauche (parrying dagger), or a pair of smallish weapons. I'm not familiar with any historical context where two full-sized weapons were used.

- If somebody with one small weapon attacks a person with two weapons, it's reasonable that the person with one is going to get hit. That's just a fact. Two weapons is an advantage. Watching this video of sparring between a 2h sword and a rapier & dagger combo, the single weapon has a bit more intimidation factor, but can't keep up with the flexibility of the two weapons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BjT38B2-KY

- As a GM, the way to deal with it isn't to eliminate the skill. It's to have equally skilled and equipped enemies, or to have enemies using longer weapons that preclude a riposte. Somebody attacking with a long spear simply isn't going to be in range for a riposte from a one-hander of any type. Even with a short spear and minimal training, you can control the flow of a fight against a dual wielder. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM

- Assuming the dual wielder does get a simultaneous strike against their foe, that does not equate to automatic damage. Enemies should be wearing armor just as often as the player is, and you still have to beat the AR to hit the person beneath. Most players will not have significant strike bonuses at lower levels, so armor should be quite effective. Chainmail will stop 60-70% of strikes from a lowbie, for example. As players go up in level and get bigger bonuses, they should be facing opponents who have also gone up in level, and have bigger bonuses (and who have paired weapons skills themselves).

- Remember that using both weapon at once to hit the opponent twice on your turn means that you cannot parry and riposte your opponent's next attack - you can only dodge, which also loses your next attack.

------

If all of that seems too bothersome to think about and you don't like having to think while GMing, there's a simple house rule you can use as well that will help you out. Simply make it so shields can be used to parry simul-strikes (ripostes) without having the paired weapon skill. People always are griping about how useless shields are, and that would give W.P. Shield a fancy new use. I don't feel that it's necessary, but that's 'cause I use the stuff above.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:24 pm**

J. Lionheart wrote:Paired weapons is a powerful skill, but there's nothing wrong with it from my perspective. I think a lot of the fear of it comes from not using logic with it for things like weapon length, weight, angles, and opponent stats. Simultaneous Strike is useful in exactly one situation - a person with two small weapons (since they must be one handed) getting attacked by a person with one small weapon (meaning they have to get close enough that you can hit them back).

Things to remember:

You forgot to include;

"There are no rules for weapon weight encumbrance or limitation beyond a few rare Min P.S requirements, typically limited to large two handers."

"There are no rules for weapon length allowance in the default rule set, and they are all effectively the same as far as the game is concerned."

Don't get me wrong, your points are super valid in an actual fighting situation, and wish the game was more accurate in portraying that, as well as the actual difficulty to master a two weapon style. I know I tried it a few times and just flailed my arms around uselessly and exhausted myself for the most part. But paired is no harder to learn in game than any other weapon, and requires no mastery, it's tip top from level 1 to 15 (A reverse scaling penalty for main / off hand was a way I nerfed it a bit, requiring you to level a bit to get good at it).

The latter part of your post I will call out specifically;

If somebody with one small weapon attacks a person with two weapons, it's reasonable that the person with one is going to get hit. That's just a fact. Two weapons is an advantage. Watching this video of sparring between a 2h sword and a rapier & dagger combo, the single weapon has a bit more intimidation factor, but can't keep up with the flexibility of the two weapons.

The problem is this fight isn't necessarily good for a game. Games do have, and need, a separation from reality to a degree for game balance, because if your character is ideal pictured as a hulking barbarian who swings with a great axe, he shouldn't be needlessly punished for it, and should be able to competitively fight with that two hander, and not be forced into sword and board, or dual wielding because in the game, that's what wins against a paired weapons dominated game. Even if in reality, two equally skilled people, the paired weapons guy might have a huge edge.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:52 pm**

You are correct there aren't rules for it. This isn't that other game, where there's a chart for everything.

The rules are that the G.M. is the boss. Do not let some player try to rules-lawyer you by claiming "it doesn't say that in the book!" So what? It doesn't say the opposite, either. The book specifically says that you, the G.M., are in charge of that. Use your brain! Gamers tend to incline towards the nerdy side of things - embrace your intellect and realize that when something doesn't make sense, it doesn't have to happen.

I have three things, and only three things, that I check for every decision I make in a game I run:

- Is it logical
- Is it in balance
- Is it cool

The version of Paired Weapon where absolutely nothing is based on reality is not logical, balanced, or cool - it is in fact the complete opposite on all three counts. Response? Apply logic, and suddenly it becomes balanced and cool without any ado. Furthermore, you're not changing any rules at all! You're just doing what's reasonable. Those weights and weapon lengths aren't in the book for no reason. As a G.M., you've gotta remember that you are in charge of the world. You cannot control what the players do, nor should you try, but what people are capable of is fully within your control (and the book says as much, over and over again).

Also, I disagree that a person who views their character as a using a 2 hander should automatically be on the same footing as somebody who dual wields. Nobody is forced to be something simply because it's "the best." That's min-maxxing, and has very little to do with "role playing." It isn't punishment to use logic and reason - it's simply characterization. Some people will be better than you at some things, and that's good - that's the way of the world. You're probably better than them at something else. They might hit you more, but yout hit harder. They parry a lot of stuff, but they can't parry at all if they don't see you coming. If all a player cares about is being the best at everything, they should just go load up a video game, type IDDQD, and have fun accomplishing absolutely nothing.

When you don't feel like you can beat a person in a stand up fight, the solution isn't to gripe that the game is unbalanced - balance has nothing to do with it. The solution is to find another way to fight! Try an ambush, or use ranged weapons, or hire mercs, or (heaven forbid!) try diplomacy. Most XP in Palladium is not awarded for combat - it's awarded for planning, thinking, skill use, and even gives bonuses for avoiding combat. Use reality to inspire great play.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:13 pm**

For many players, more so the ones that fancy themselves smart or good with numbers, are always going to take the best choice in a character when one is clearly above the other without question, because to do so is illogical.

Now why do some GM's want things written down and rules? Well some people like the fact that RPG's more or less, have everyone playing with the same rules. When a GM suddenly changes them, it lowers their ability to be credible, now sometimes sure, its needed / helpful, but most of the time you want a purely stable rule set where everyone knows what they're getting into without surprises. I know if I was new to the game and realized how Paired works after building towards a two hander build, I'd be miffed. Now say the GM is like "no it makes fine sense" (say they don't get into reenactment fights much), now as the PC, I'm screwed. I've got to either adapt to a paired weapon style, or realize and accept I'll always be at a big disadvantage for the remainder of the game until the fights go into high end mode (since most monsters at that point don't use weapons, so Simo attacks, and Parry / Attack are less of a problem). Or I suppose I rage quit the game and go play D&D. And I'm not saying that barbarian without any skills should be the best at everything, He should at least be as good as a warrior with WP Sword and WP Paired, and a full set of normal skills (with matching physicals since they're both building to be fighters, not skilled setups by and large). So what does the barbarian get out of not having paired? 1 Additional Secondary skill (Since paired will always be secondary, as it's level and skill % is irrelevent).

And yes, including those 'reasonable' things are changing the rules. If you change anything in the game that results in a difference in the choices a player makes from a game play stand point, you have changed the rules. For example, once I changed the rules and said that players may not just roll public speaking in an attempt to convince one player or NPC of a thing, they must also have a speech / augment (this rule change was to encourage RP). It resulted in several players making fighters, because they did struggle with that aspect of the game.

And I realize no rule set will include every path that could be taken, and it's fine to fill in those blank spaces. But this is a very core mechanic of the game. I've never had a smart player of mine look over paired and then make a fight-centric class that did not have paired. It's simply good, and better than the other choices that could be made. Why wouldn't these nerdy people who embrace their intellect as you put it, take the less logical and sensical choice?

Also, Charts are not the devil.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:46 pm**

If I understand your argument correctly, it sounds like you feel that taking anything but "the best" is illogical or non-sensical, and that the GM should not do anything but what's in writing. If that's your belief, then I can't tell you you're wrong - paired weapons is the most powerful starting combat format if the GM is unwilling to do anything but what's in writing.

I just disagree with both points.

My belief is that taking "the best" is not the only logical or sensical option, because I believe that playing the game is about more than stats. I believe that it's about feelings, emotion, getting in to the character, and letting the imperfections shape me. If I'm not the best at something, I look at that as an opportunity to work on other aspects of my character. Also, I believe very strongly in the book's guidance that the G.M. is free to fill in any gaps and make up any rules necessary to bring about a positive gameplay experience. All of the best games I've been a player in have involved the GM doing this, and I do it as well.

Sounds like we're just debating from two completely different starting points, which is fine - it happens. We're just never going to agree on an answer :-D

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:01 pm**

J. Lionheart wrote:My belief is that taking "the best" is not the only logical or sensical option, because I believe that playing the game is about more than stats. I believe that it's about feelings, emotion, getting in to the character, and letting the imperfections shape me. If I'm not the best at something, I look at that as an opportunity to work on other aspects of my character. Also, I believe very strongly in the book's guidance that the G.M. is free to fill in any gaps and make up any rules necessary to bring about a positive gameplay experience. All of the best games I've been a player in have involved the GM doing this, and I do it as well.

Sounds like we're just debating from two completely different starting points, which is fine - it happens. We're just never going to agree on an answer

Gee, that all sounds well and good, but where does it say this is a "Role-Playing Game"?... Oh wait, it's right there on the cover of the book, my bad...

For those that don't like the combat rules as written and want a more detailed option, I refer you to Palladium's optional more elaborate rules for combat in The Weapons Compendium Books. These chart out the different bonuses and penalties for different weapons based on weight, balance, reach, etc. And the ancient ones are less than $10 a pop.

-Mike

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:19 pm**

J. Lionheart wrote:If I understand your argument correctly, it sounds like you feel that taking anything but "the best" is illogical or non-sensical, and that the GM should not do anything but what's in writing. If that's your belief, then I can't tell you you're wrong - paired weapons is the most powerful starting combat format if the GM is unwilling to do anything but what's in writing.

I just disagree with both points.

My belief is that taking "the best" is not the only logical or sensical option, because I believe that playing the game is about more than stats. I believe that it's about feelings, emotion, getting in to the character, and letting the imperfections shape me. If I'm not the best at something, I look at that as an opportunity to work on other aspects of my character. Also, I believe very strongly in the book's guidance that the G.M. is free to fill in any gaps and make up any rules necessary to bring about a positive gameplay experience. All of the best games I've been a player in have involved the GM doing this, and I do it as well.

Sounds like we're just debating from two completely different starting points, which is fine - it happens. We're just never going to agree on an answer

You're half right on my stance. I'm not saying players can't, won't or shouldn't not worry about their characters relative power. But at the same time, I'd much rather play a game where I can both make as powerful of a character as I can manage within the realm of a concept AND still be free to role play them. To me, a characters rules, and their capabilities, and how they should be role played should be the same thing. People try to separate 'roll' and 'role' in RPG's, when they should instead be intermingled aspects. I'd rather have rules set up, either by default rules, or through encouraging well thought out and tested home brewed fixes, where players have these options to build their character to both be interesting as a character, and be effective in their chosen role, in this case of course, melee fighters. A good example was a now legendary local NPC I ran, a Wolfen who went by Ice, who was a sort of warrior-philosopher, who found himself in battle, and each aspect of his personality was represented by different weapons (to do this of course, he had pretty much no support skills, the player group needed a fighter, since the group was -very- support and skill focused, and it was a new group mostly, so I couldn't trust them to avoid fights on their own just yet, so I make sure I covered my bets). The problem was, that these aspects of his personality never got to shine, it was always right for him to use his Claw brace and Long Sword. It was never the wrong choice unless he was facing ranged attacks, then it was Hatchet and Shield until he got into melee. But, after seeing this problem (this was years ago mind you), I set to work to fix that problem better, and set things up where the different choices, even small, opened up that NPC's (and thus future characters) options in a fight, and let his personality shine through. Some times he (or I) would make a poor judgement call as to what weapons would serve me best in this fight, and they'd suffer and learn from it, other times they'd make right choices and dominate through a fight, other times it was more even between, but his mood and the situation could drive those elements. This was so successful, his skill set up got adapted by my very number minded players, and it became a popular build for those looking to play a pure fighter (which is uncommon, skills are too valued, both for their 'roll' uses, and their 'role' uses, I've even had players demand I leave the Breed Dog skill in the game).

And to clarify, Paired is the most powerful fighting style all through out the game, from level 1 (Where it is at its peak, the lowest forms of armor are common, people have weaker defenses to start with) and it ends the most powerful, even with the advent of forced non-paired opponents appears in demons, dragons, and the like, paired is still an option for some or all of these, and even if you cannot parry them, it out damages two handed weapons by around 50% (more if you've got money to outfit, since the same +1D damage enchants can be doubled up on one handers).

My final point is these SHOULD be default rules. Players should NEVER be forced to deal with imbalancing issues like this. And I would second MADMANMIKE's suggestion of getting those weapon compendium books. Those should be the rules printed and adapted into Palladium in the first place, and are a great starting point for editing out problems.

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:01 pm**

Well, I'm late to this, but I feel a good balance for this problem would be to rule that a 2 handed weapon, with its greater mass and strength of 2 arms, cannot be parried one handed. That would be the same for true giant weapons.

-Vek
"Having to use an attack on defense is a big deal."

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:18 pm**

That's not a bad idea... I was also just thinking of going the D&D route... Fighting with two weapons gives you a -4 to the main hand, and a -8 to the off hand weapons. Wp: Paired Weapons reduces this to -3 each hand. Something like that.

Or, I keep coming back to just removing Simo attacks... that also seems like an easy fix, as it is the most unbalancing aspect of it. But the inability to parry a two handed weapon is nice too...

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:44 pm**

It is a powerful skill to have at level 1,So maybe it will be better if your characters need to pass a few level before they geting it.

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:57 pm**

Everybody is missing what the real issue here is...
Its not the paired weps skill at all that is the problem...
It is the Simultaneous Attack option.
This is by far the most easily abused option in the game.
The only limitation on it is the characters SDC and HPs.
I have seen the abuse at its worst .
There it boiled down to which character could survive being damaged the longest.
Now I do like the option because I have seen its use in real life (won a few amateur karate tournaments with it... amazing how fast that lightning quick kick slows down when you land a blow on his thigh and knot the muscles) so I dont want to remove it completely...
Solution: Limit its use... Since I have adopted a House Ruled 3 phase combat concept that resolves the whole movement in combat thing as well as the disparate APM issue... I will adapt this current issue to it as well...
since there are 3 phases of 5 seconds (purely for resolving movement and APM divisions, everything else still functions the same) it makes sense to limit the option to once per phase. (might add in a rule after play test to allow for expanding the option more)...

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:34 am**

Taking away paird weapons from the players isn't the answer.

A few things to keep in mind about paired weapons.

Yes they can parry and simo attack a single foe. But this also uses up one of the players actions.

Players can still be attacked by more than one foe. If a guy is wielding two weapons most likely his foes will realize the danger in being parried and attacked with the other weapon. So have guys gang up on the dual wielding player. He can still simo attack to gurantee hits, but once he's out of actions he's down to just defending with out a chance to dodge. (That uses an acton too!) So is foes essentally get to take a few shots at him for free where he will be unable to strike back.

You can't simo attack from a distance.. If he's cutting down foes left and right have a couple of archers take a few shots at him with bows or crossbows.. That will slow him down a bit.

You can't use two handed weapons as paired weapons. (Unless you have 4 arms.)

Even with paired weapons you can't dodge or parry attacks from behind.. Have enemies approach from different sides so if he engages one another will get a free shot on them..

When all else fails have him face foes who also have paired weapons.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:57 am**

A couple of other ones I forgot to post:

Use a disarm attack. Can't parry and simo attack with only one weapon. 8-)

Another and even better option especially if the PC is fighting a foe with massively superior strength is to have the monster attack the weapons teh PC is using. :twisted:

Weapons on average have 50 SDC. (Pg 46 PFRPG)

Troll to PC after weapon breaks "Lets see how tough you are now that it's a fair fight." :twisted:

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:35 pm**

MT-NME wrote:You could apply some limitations to taking the skill, without changing the skill itself.
For example, make it cost 2 skill selections. Or require it be used only with known WP's (apply a heavy "off-hand" penalty to both weapons if the WP is not known) Or require them to define what two WPs are used paired (sword & shield, sword & sword, dagger & axe, ect.) Each additional pairing would require another paired skill selection.

pretty sure thats how it is supposed to work.

Posted: **Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:16 pm**

i make it so 2h weapons need a cross block to parry when using 2 weapons, which costs an attack just like a dodge, and i also enforce that they have to say that they are using the 2 weapon style advantage at the start of the round or they cant use it so the loss of autoparry is more effective.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:20 pm**

I like the paired skill, its is not that over powering. You can make simutanious attacks, in fact it makes it easier with swords such as kando's. I have been training with escrima sticks and knifes since i was in my late teens and have added the twin chinese broad swords and kando's. You start off training with light weight practice weapons. And yes it does take lots of work to get it down. But as you get better it get easier and easier to the point you dont even think about it any more. Your brain and body dont have to think about how to react you just do.

As for it being a first level skill, I have no problem it here for this reason. Because i assume all begining character have had training in their base occ and skills. You dont just know how to pick locks, you need to practice it before you have any skill in it. no matter how many times you watch someone else do it.

I do not see this being a skill where you use two handed sword/battle axes and such. but for medium or smaller weapons, with training its not going to be that bad.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:32 pm**

Just throw multiple attackers at the player with Paired Weapons, or 1 opponent with extra attacks per melee. They simo attack, use up their auto parry, and they're be toast real quick. Simo attack is a good option, but if the player is using it at every opportunity then after that they are using up attacks to dodge and parry, and can't attack much after that, or they are getting auto hit like mad.

You have to use the trade off correctly. Like anything if you give all the advantages and don't work in the drawbacks, it's going to be OP.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:21 pm**

If it is that much of a problem in your game just make the rule that you can't parry a 2h weapon with a 1h weapon or your damage bonus is half with paired, or both

Posted: **Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:44 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
MT-NME wrote:You could apply some limitations to taking the skill, without changing the skill itself.
For example, make it cost 2 skill selections. Or require it be used only with known WP's (apply a heavy "off-hand" penalty to both weapons if the WP is not known) Or require them to define what two WPs are used paired (sword & shield, sword & sword, dagger & axe, ect.) Each additional pairing would require another paired skill selection.
pretty sure thats how it is supposed to work.

This is how I have always interpreted the rule. For paired weapon skills. WP paired weapons, requires you to first have the base WP/s. To be able to do: WP Paired Sword and Knife you needed first WP Sword and WP Knife, then you could take WP Paired Sword/Knife. Now you can only use paired weapons with a sword and a knife, not two swords, or two knives, or a sword and shield, or knife and mace ect. That helps limit how many paired weapon skills a character has.....Until they get Paired weapons from HTH training. Then I rule it covers everything you have a WP for and is a bit more unbalancing. But by then they should be more skilled and get to be kick @$$.

Posted: **Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:48 pm**

Damian Magecraft wrote:
MT-NME wrote:snip...
Or require them to define what two WPs are used paired (sword & shield, sword & sword, dagger & axe, ect.) Each additional pairing would require another paired skill selection.
pretty sure thats how it is supposed to work.

That is how it works in ninja and superspies.

Posted: **Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:43 pm**

wp shield has paired built in, letting you use another weapon in your other hand.

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:49 pm**

I don't remember WP shield getting paired weapons built in. You can always have a different weaponor shield in each hand. You just can't use the paired techniques without the proper WP paired weapons skill.

A shield in one hand and a sword in the other. You can parry an incoming attack with either a shield or the sword, but without Paired weapons you can't simultaneously parry with the shield and attack with the sword at the same time.

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:43 pm**

42dragon wrote:I don't remember WP shield getting paired weapons built in. You can always have a different weaponor shield in each hand. You just can't use the paired techniques without the proper WP paired weapons skill.

A shield in one hand and a sword in the other. You can parry an incoming attack with either a shield or the sword, but without Paired weapons you can't simultaneously parry with the shield and attack with the sword at the same time.

Bad way of putting it on my behalf, at least you can use a sword and shield at the same time without having to have paired weapons.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:14 pm**

MADMANMIKE wrote:like banning Martial Arts because it's more powerful than Hand to Hand: Basic

LOL, martial arts fails, the automatic crit or knockout from behind that basic/expert gets is worth however behind they might be in MA in other areas. Great for ganging up on somebody, even if they have friends with martial arts, you can take a few hits (even show your back, they lack the auto-win) while you take down the guy who can't cover all his directions.

UR Leader Hobbes wrote:Weapons on average have 50 SDC. (Pg 46 PFRPG)

Troll to PC after weapon breaks "Lets see how tough you are now that it's a fair fight."

Doesn't it take a called shot to hit weapons though? The troll may end up missing or getting parried by the time they manage to whittle down a weapon. It might take less time to go for disarms, really. Fewer bonuses, but only need to succeed in one roll, plus that leaves you with gear to pilfer.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:27 pm**

I'm ok with it as written. Paired weapons is powerful, but not outrageously so. I consider it on par with W.P. net, use poison, and horsemanship.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:59 pm**

Cinos wrote:The problem is that it more than doubles damage, and the simo attack is assured damage for the most part, to the point the only way to deal with fighting against Paired Weapons, is to use Paired Weapons, which is what makes it 'over powered', or rather, unbalancing. It is strictly better than using a two handed weapon, and better than using a Shield as an off handed weapon. And I'd like as a player, and as a GM, for my players, to be able to effectively bring a fighting style that fits their character. Of course, two handers swing back into favor with Barbarians. Since they can dual wield them.

Dang that like someone with a sword going against someone with a seige arbales at 2000' who then drops it and picks up a chukuno and continues giring while the guy with the sword closes.
it's like someone brining a vibroblade to a plasmagun fight
It's like holding a siege on a castle with a necromancer
It's like a RMB vagabond vs. a glitterboy
It's like an Ancient dragon vs. a single knight
It's like a changing vs. a salt merchant
Its like a thief with no place to hide and no magic items fighting a knight in full plate

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:10 am**

W.P. Net gives you a chance to almost totally incapacitate your foe for several melee rounds of essentially free beat-downs (-8 to strike, -10 to parry/dodge, and even if they're only cutting themselves out, it takes 2-5 melee rounds). One throw of the net, and you can beat your foe into submission.

Horsemanship of sufficient skill gives you extra free attacks a la hoof, combat bonuses, charge attacks, and the ability to outrun anything on foot.

Use poison, though, takes the cake in my book. Specifically, using natural toxins that cause convulsions, paralysis, et cetera. You can utterly defeat almost any foe without even having to kill him/her (though you could easily do that, too). Or, if you're not a good alignment, you can apply a poison like Dragon's Breath and cause an extra 6D6 every time you hit your opponent.

By comparison, paired weapons is rather tame. In any case, Taking paired weapons is a waste for anyone with H-H Expert or Martial Arts; you'll get it for free at level 7 anyway. It can be tempting, but in the long run, it's just not worth it, and there are better skills to pick.

Forums of the Megaverse®

WP: Paired Weapons

WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons

Re: WP: Paired Weapons