Anyone else considered whether or not the Pendragon system could be adapted towards playing out something similar to the ballads and stories of Robin Hood? Both the stories certainly are rooted in a common theme of a code of honor and embarking on quests to right wrongs, even if Merry Men tend to take a somewhat different approach to it than Round Table Knights.

The biggest difference of course is that the combat system would probably have to be reworked to support something a little more based on agility (and ranged combat of course) rather than heavily armored and mounted knights. Character creation specifics would also likely be changed, but for the most part Robin Hood and his Merry Men are defined by their status as Yeomen turned outlaws (with the odd member of the clergy such as Friar Tuck along with some minor nobility depending on what version of Maid Marian you ascribe to). There would probably be some variation added based off of what your previous profession was before becoming an outlaw, but there wouldn't be much reason of changing it much more than how Charlemagne uses page training for instance.

One could even consider building up a band of outlaws and a network of support out in the countryside and wilderness to be a substitute for manor building.

I suppose one issue could be that the timeframe of the legends doesn't exactly lend itself towards the dynastic style of play, since the most common version of the stories tend to place his exploits as occurring during the third crusade, while King Richard the Lionheart is away, leaving Prince John to mismanage everything. This is only about three years. But one could conceivably expand things beyond that time frame. Richard wasn't exactly known for being a king that was often present in England, so that's a solid decade of history with England under the management of less than heroic individuals to work with, and he's also sandwiched between two other kings with reigns ripe with potential conflicts for some noble outlaws. (That being Henry II and the infamous King John.) This all might be drifting away from the Robin Hood Mythos though.

What do you guys think about all this?

I firmly believe that KAP works quite well in any semi-realistic medieval setting. I am currently running a campaign set in Middle-earth, for example.

The chargen tweaks would be quite easy to incorporate.

You are right that the combat needs to be reworked a bit, if you want to keep the unarmored player-characters from being chopped to bits by armed guards. However, realistically armor was a game-changer; you are at a serious disadvantage without it! One easy tweak would be that on a partial success, you only take a minor wound, 1d6 damage. If you wish to cater to more cinematic play, you can do what Hollywood does and treat armor as simply a costume, which doesn't give any protection, and this would level the playing field for the outlaw PCs, at the expense of suspension of disbelief. Probably an easier, more realistic way is to have both side use gambesons, if the PCs intend to do melee combat, and save chainmail for actual, rare-ish knights, best to be pincushioned from afar.

As for the timeframe, while dynastic might be out of reach, you can still expand it much beyond the usual Robin Hood timeframe, as has been done by some adaptations (Robin and Marian, and the recent Russell Crowe film). So your idea of stretching it out some more should work, although personally, I would lean away from Henry II and lean more into John, who already (somewhat undeservedly) has the villain stamp on his forehead. And his son, Henry III, was considered a weak king, and you have the struggles about the Magna Charta, Simon de Montfort and the first Parliament during his reign, too. Easily stuff for outlaws to do. Also, note that the original Robin Hood stories had nothing to do with King Richard; that was a later development.

So the timeline could be:
1189 King Richard is crowned and he pretty much immediately disembarks on the Crusade, leaving the governance of England in the hands of greedy individuals.
1193 Richard is imprisoned for this year (and a bit of 1192 and 1194). This would be the meat of the (short) campaign, the whole intrigue about the ransom, etc. Plenty of opportunities for the patriotic outlaws to shine.
1194 Richard returns, but while he might pardon the outlaws (if they join his war in France), he also pardons John.
1194-9 Richard's campaigning in France before he drops dead.
1199 John ascends the throne, and given how troublesome those pesky outlaws were, he outlaws them again.
1215 Magna Charta and the First Barons War.
1216 John dies, succeeded by Henry III, with the puissant William Marshal as the regent.
1217 The war ends.

That would already be more than enough for a campaign, almost 30 years. Also, Henry III had as favorites his maternal cousins, the Lusignans, who could certainly be cast as the new villains of the piece, for the next generation. Then 40+ years later, you have Simon de Montfort (1258 onwards) and the Second Barons' War (1264 - 68).

One thing I was thinking about for less armored combat is the idea of incorporating more with Dexterity. Dexterity would already be more useful in a Robin Hood game than a King Arthur game simply due to the differences in genre (lot more DEX rolls expected for your average outlaw than knight.) Perhaps we could combine that with your partial success idea by having Dexterity serve as something of a shield value for the game. So on a partial success you can evade your opponent to take less damage, adding your Dexterity score -10 (min. 0)

That would make a lightly armored build a riskier but still viable alternative to armored combat. A dextrous fighter could be much more difficult to get a serious hit in, though once you do it's going to hurt badly, compared to heavy armor which is going to be far more expensive for your average outlaw, not always useful for every outlaw activity (Because of it's dex-reducing qualities) but is going to be far more reliable.

Only other thing to consider is making sure the different combat styles are well supported. Pendragon more or less supports two forms of combat, regular melee and mounted charges, both of which your average knight is supposed to be at least decent with. Robin Hood doesn't do mounted charges for the most part, and instead mostly seems to focus on three forms of fighting, archery, swordsmaship, and staff fighting. (One of the most common distinctions among the Merry Men is that Robin was the best Archer, Little John the best Staff Fighter, and Will Scarlet the best Swordsman.) Technically speaking Staff Fighting being so prominent is a bit of an anachronism for the late 12th early 13th centuries, being more common in the early modern period when the ballads were being compiled, but it's distinctive enough to keep around. Now precisely how to keep it distinctive from Swordfighting is another matter. It seems like staves would be the more defensive, less damaging option to swords, so perhaps it could deal 1d6 less damage but add five to your fighting skill, but only for the purpose of getting a partial success? (Though this does ironically make it a little more suited to Dex builds, while Little John is by contrast would probably have stats much more similar to your average KAP knight.)

Archery by comparison has the issue of figuring out if ranged fighting styles within the combat system. KAP's philosophy of knightly weapons mean that the strategy has more to do with surviving the arrow volleys instead of shooting them yourself. Not entirely sure if this needs changes, but it's something to consider, since archery would be such a major part of the game.

Good eye on the potential timeline expansions. King John's reign was certainly something I was considering, especially with the Magna Carta and the rise of parliamentary rights being a sort of symbolic victory of the ideals of the noble outlaws against tyrannous rule.

One other thing to consider with the suggested timeframe, is the possible inclusion of elements relating to the English Jewish population. The whole period was a fairly turbulent one for the Jews, going from what was practically a Golden Age for them in the late 12th century to a time of increasing hostility from the populace. Richard I made a big show of standing for the Jews when they were the victims of riots following his coronation, to the dismay of many in the Clergy. Then during the period of misrule of John, many Jews were in the unfortunate position, where they were suffering financially just as much as any others, but because they were commonly the ones that held the debts in the first place, they were often targeted.

Of course this would add a shade of grey to some of the conflicts for Noble Outlaws of the time. Many of the common folk the PCs might be trying to help might also be making scapegoats out of the local Jewish money lenders, requiring mediation between the two groups. It also puts a damper on some of the figures at the time. After all, someone like Simon de Montfort becomes far less of a suitably heroic patron for a band of Noble Outlaws when you consider all the massacres he and his followers committed against the Jewish peoples.

It's something to consider at the very least.

Of course this would add a shade of grey to some of the conflicts for Noble Outlaws of the time. Many of the common folk the PCs might be trying to help might also be making scapegoats out of the local Jewish money lenders, requiring mediation between the two groups. It also puts a damper on some of the figures at the time. After all, someone like Simon de Montfort becomes far less of a suitably heroic patron for a band of Noble Outlaws when you consider all the massacres he and his followers committed against the Jewish peoples.

Yep, not a good time to be a Jew in England, and really you are screwed either way. Support Henry III and Prince Edward against Simon de Montfort, and Edward, as King Edward I, a decade later (1278) arrests all the Jews in England (estimated at 3000), and has an estimated 300 of them executed at the Tower of London the following year. And a decade after that, in 1290, all the Jews are expelled from England. And of course, by that time they have already been squeezed dry and financially ruined anyway.

While I doubt that the plight of the Jews would play a major part in a storyline, given how rare and widely hated they are, your idea of using them to spice things up a bit would work nicely, I think. Ivanhoe was all the better for Isaac and Rebecca. And speaking of which, you can pretty much swipe a good part of the Ivanhoe plot for an adventure, too. :P

One thing I was thinking about for less armored combat is the idea of incorporating more with Dexterity. Dexterity would already be more useful in a Robin Hood game than a King Arthur game simply due to the differences in genre (lot more DEX rolls expected for your average outlaw than knight.) Perhaps we could combine that with your partial success idea by having Dexterity serve as something of a shield value for the game. So on a partial success you can evade your opponent to take less damage, adding your Dexterity score -10 (min. 0)


Hmm. How about you get an armor bonus on a partial success that is your modified Dexterity score? Otherwise normal Pendragon combat. I don't think this would be terribly overpowered, given that the outlaws would rarely wear armor or even use shields (and you want to encourage that style of play), meaning that most of them would have Armor of 10 on a partial success, so sword hits still hurt. Armor is still a good thing to have, since you get its protection even when you fail or are shot at, although I would introduce some kind of dodging mechanism for being shot, like a DEX roll, partial still gets you the DEX armor, or otherwise the Robin Hood Wannabees will end up crossbowed to death.

Of course, one of the things about the outlaws is that if you are fighting fair against the Sheriff of Nottingham, you are doing it wrong, and playing to his strengths. You should be hiding and ambushing small patrols, shooting them with longbows, not stand in a line and trade swordblows.

As for a quarterstaff, one possible suggestion would be to give it +6 armor (like a shield) on a partial, but make it -1d6 damage in that defensive grip. That gives Little John (strong, not so dexterous) some extra armor he needs, while he can take the damage penalty thanks to his high base damage.

Of course, one of the things about the outlaws is that if you are fighting fair against the Sheriff of Nottingham, you are doing it wrong, and playing to his strengths. You should be hiding and ambushing small patrols, shooting them with longbows, not stand in a line and trade swordblows.

This... Robin understands that they aren't a match in a standup fight, and uses ambushes with liberal traps to even the odds.


As for a quarterstaff, one possible suggestion would be to give it +6 armor (like a shield) on a partial, but make it -1d6 damage in that defensive grip. That gives Little John (strong, not so dexterous) some extra armor he needs, while he can take the damage penalty thanks to his high base damage.

I like this, but would probably give it a bit more, say +8. Quarterstaffs are stout.

I wouldn't go with less damage though. Just say the damage is Less Lethal. Causes a stun effect that can be shaken off in (damage) hours; and perhaps an opposed roll of damage vs CON to see if the opponent is knocked out. Major Wounds are real, and cause broken bones and are resolved normally.

SDLeary

Hmm. How about you get an armor bonus on a partial success that is your modified Dexterity score? Otherwise normal Pendragon combat. I don't think this would be terribly overpowered, given that the outlaws would rarely wear armor or even use shields (and you want to encourage that style of play), meaning that most of them would have Armor of 10 on a partial success, so sword hits still hurt. Armor is still a good thing to have, since you get its protection even when you fail or are shot at, although I would introduce some kind of dodging mechanism for being shot, like a DEX roll, partial still gets you the DEX armor, or otherwise the Robin Hood Wannabees will end up crossbowed to death.

That's basically what I was thinking, just realized I might not have conveyed it properly. Definitely good to make ranged attacks an opposed roll against DEX, since it'll be more important to dodge properly instead of relying upon being a big steel turtle like Knights get to.




As for a quarterstaff, one possible suggestion would be to give it +6 armor (like a shield) on a partial, but make it -1d6 damage in that defensive grip. That gives Little John (strong, not so dexterous) some extra armor he needs, while he can take the damage penalty thanks to his high base damage.

Having a Quarterstaff act as a pseudo-shield definitely seems less cumbersome than my solution. I'm not entirely sure about reduced damage, but it seems like the least complicated approach that also helps ensure balance.

One thing I worry about though is the fact that while shields aren't terribly suitable for the genre, there would be very little reason for the players not to go for sword and shield instead of staff (especially since KAP places shields as being inexpensive enough for commoners to afford.)

Perhaps introduce a specifically anti-shield rule to combat? Make dodging attacks (using modified dexterity) prevent you from stacking on the shield bonus on top of it, while still allowing you to add the staff bonus.

This in essence creates two primary melee combat styles for most outlaws, along with a rarer one. One can either go with a sword alone, evading strikes with superior dexterity while dealing full damage with their pointy metal stick. Take a staff for the defensive approach, at the cost of less damage. Or if they want to play as some fallen knight and managed to get some better (read: incredibly expensive) armor, they can tank their dexterity, take sword and board, and act like they're still playing KAP (at the cost of tripping through all the underbrush while their companions nimbly move through sherwood forest.)

There is a social issue at work though against shields. They are a weapon of war: if you are carrying one, you are planning to fight. Not even all of the town guard carries shields, generally only those at the gatehouses. If you carry a shield, you are going to garner attention.

Of course this doesn't matter in Sherwood, but if your in Nottingham, Doncaster, or Sheffield trying to gather intel, you are going to stand out! "Oy, you there wif da shieldt!". If you are approaching the Abbey with shields, the good Sisters are probably less likely to open the door for you, even if you do provide supplies for their alms giving and support. And so on.

SDLeary

That's another good reason in practice, but I don't think it's a bad idea to have a mechanical disincentive just in case, in order to hammer home that the shield is a tool that you'd typically only be using the battlefield, along with a modicum of armor, as opposed to the agile fighting style typical of outlaws.

You could reverse the Unencumbered bonus for Knights fighting without armor. Apply it as a penalty to wearing armor; that would make it -5 combat to those that are armored. In Paladin, its -5 for leather armor, and -10 for metal. That seems extreme to me though.

SDLeary

That's not a terrible idea, but it seems unnecessary to me. The primary things to consider with armor and combat is to make going lightly armored or unarmored not a death sentence like it would be in KAP, without going in the opposite direction and making it so that a person lucky enough to get good armor doesn't become an unkillable god.

I think this is solved best by making it a choice between fighting with armor versus fighting with agility. Armor imposes enough of a dexterity penalty that it's practically impossible for anyone to use both methods effectively. Armor is slightly more reliable as a way to reduce damage than dodging, but between it's cost (which is reasonable for knights, but very expensive for outlaws), and the problems it causes for your dexterity, it creates a bit of a different dynamic for the Players. In many cases they'll have to fight opponents that are better armored than they are, but that also means they can pull of tricks, traps and ambushes that much more easily. Adding an encumbered penalty on top of that seems like it would be excessive though, since it could actually make their opponents significantly weaker as to not be a reasonable threat.

Also a side benefit to all this is that these rules could conceivably be combined with the regular KAP rule systems to allow knights and outlaws to be run in the same party, since neither actually gimps the other's playstyle, it just encourages two different approaches that can be taken. That's not top priority obviously, but there are enough stories about fallen knights, and outlaw types fighting alongside knightly types (such as during some of Richard the Lionhearted's campaigns and crusades) that I thought it would be nice to allow the two to be able to play nice in the same rule set for a crossover type of game.

I like this, but would probably give it a bit more, say +8. Quarterstaffs are stout.


There is no way that a quarterstaff should be more protective than a full-on shield. If you increase the quarterstaff protection, you will have to add to the shield protection, too.



I wouldn't go with less damage though. Just say the damage is Less Lethal. Causes a stun effect that can be shaken off in (damage) hours; and perhaps an opposed roll of damage vs CON to see if the opponent is knocked out. Major Wounds are real, and cause broken bones and are resolved normally.


It is a balancing issue, to keep Swords useful. This way, quarterstaff loses out to Sword and Shield, but it is comparable to Sword (equal with an offensive grip, which gets rid of the damage penalty but also the armor bonus), and it has the major advantage over Sword and Shield in that it elicits no comment whatsoever from the guards. Like you point out, a shield would definitely raise suspicions, and sword might also cause some raised eyebrows.

The Less Lethal damage is an option, of course, but it doesn't really address the balance, since you don't really care if that mook is out unconscious or dead, either way you have won. if quarterstaff = sword + shield, you would never carry anything else.

As for why you wouldn't kit out with a sword and shield in all cases (Ravian's question), you already pointed out the social penalty of a shield. Furthermore, a shield is a royal pain in the buttocks to be carried around, if you don't actually expect to use it. Those suckers are easily 10lbs or even 15lbs, and that is not something you want to carry if you are all about running in the forest and shooting a bow.

So in this methodology:

Staff:
- superior in stealth
- beats a lone sword
- defensive
- versatile

Sword:
- easy to carry around
- good damage
- poor defense (except if you are a master swordsman and win all the time, or have high enough DEX that you don't need the extra armor)

Sword + Shield:
- poor stealth (i.e. gets you noticed)
- good damage and defense: superior if you are actually planning to fight in a melee.

So you can make a dexterous swordsman who does well with sword, or a strong quaterstaff wielder, or you can prefer having that sword and shield option for when you really have to go to melee. Or you can do what most outlaws probably end up doing: have both at 15 and then specialize.

I think most of the combat revision details seem to be sorted out at this point. Moving into other areas now, primarily character creation.

A lot of the elements from Paladin seem appropriate, with the shortened time span, it might be more appropriate to draw upon more direct relatives for replacement characters rather than heirs alone, which is certainly genre appropriate given some of the inter-related members of the Merry Men. (Will Scarlet is often depicted as a cousin or Nephew of Robin, and other stories in the "Robin meets his match" genre often involve discovering that the challenger is related to one of the merry men, such as Little John's relative Arthur a Bland.) Family characteristics and patron saints are also nice touches for characterization (And Robin has a few stories that specify that he holds the Virgin Mary in particular esteem)

That brings us to the greater class distinctions. Yeomen is the most appropriate, but given that the players will end up as outlaws anyway, there's little harm in expanding the scale just a bit, with some higher class Villeins on the lower side of things, and some fallen knights and squires on the higher side (for the gentrified Robin experience, or Ivanhoe.), meanwhile the middle is filled out with the particularities of the Yeomen class, including some of the civil servant jobs, such as foresters, bailiffs, churchwardens, and such, along with the possibility of even having some Crown Yeomen (especially appropriate if you want the PCs to get involved with more of the politics of the realm.)

Was thinking about whether skill additions or revisions might be appropriate, after all we are talking about skills more appropriate for Yeomen and Outlaws than Knights. Fortunately there are some skills, such as Swimming and Folklore that are certainly going to come in handy more often, while others aren't as relevant, such as battle and siege. Anything else that we could consider adding or cutting?

Was thinking of revising a few terms to fit more for the Outlaw style. Rather than Glory, outlaws garner notoriety, which can actually function more as a double-edged sword, since it also garners attention. The ideals should also probably be revised, as they're more rooted in chivalry than the outlaw's heroism. So rather than Chivalric Knights, Pious Knights and Romantic Knights, we might have something like Daring Outlaws, Goodly Outlaws and Dashing Outlaws, for instance.

That kind of leads into passions as well. Fortunately Paladin already condensed Loyalty, and Hospitality into Honor, since while an Outlaw may be honorable, they by definition can't really be loyal to their lord. Their king maybe, but that would probably be better suited towards a Love (Lionheart) passion. Also thinking about Prayer and such. There aren't really a whole lot of miracles that commonly occur in Robin Hood's ballads, and Robin Hood himself is often in a rather anti-clerical position (he's robbing corrupt monks and priests almost as often as he does the Sheriff after all.) But Robin Hood still seems to consider himself a godly man with his reverence for the Virgin Mary and his association with Friar Tuck. One thing that I noticed a lot was the fact that many of the corrupt priests that Robin captures he often has reciting mass for him and his men, so it might be a good idea to implement the whole Praying for others rather than yourself mechanic that Paladin uses, though stripped of it's more supernatural aspects. And of course all of Amore passions are perfectly in-genre, since where would Robin be without his love for Maid Marian?

Attitudes are another element that would work well incorporated into Robin Hood, though possibly with the addition of more of an infamy track, which along with notoriety can help determine how much the various powers that be might be out for your head, versus how likely the common folk or other allies might be able to provide you with shelter and aid.

There is no way that a quarterstaff should be more protective than a full-on shield. If you increase the quarterstaff protection, you will have to add to the shield protection, too.

True that. Though I will say that true European quarterstaves are no joke. Certainly not something that can be broken easily and can take quite the punishment. Of course, no good when the Sheriffs men bring out the crossbows.


It is a balancing issue, to keep Swords useful. This way, quarterstaff loses out to Sword and Shield, but it is comparable to Sword (equal with an offensive grip, which gets rid of the damage penalty but also the armor bonus), and it has the major advantage over Sword and Shield in that it elicits no comment whatsoever from the guards. Like you point out, a shield would definitely raise suspicions, and sword might also cause some raised eyebrows.

Fair enough. And yes, a sword would too if you were of the sword wielding classes.


The Less Lethal damage is an option, of course, but it doesn't really address the balance, since you don't really care if that mook is out unconscious or dead, either way you have won. if quarterstaff = sword + shield, you would never carry anything else.

For a one off, true. But you also want the PCs to be able to survive against one. A fine story would be if Jon had killed Robin on the bridge!


As for why you wouldn't kit out with a sword and shield in all cases (Ravian's question), you already pointed out the social penalty of a shield. Furthermore, a shield is a royal pain in the buttocks to be carried around, if you don't actually expect to use it. Those suckers are easily 10lbs or even 15lbs, and that is not something you want to carry if you are all about running in the forest and shooting a bow.

Another reason not to carry a shield! It encumbers you (-2 combat). 😉


So in this methodology:

Staff:
- superior in stealth
- beats a lone sword
- defensive
- versatile

Yup...


Sword:
- easy to carry around
- good damage
- poor defense (except if you are a master swordsman and win all the time, or have high enough DEX that you don't need the extra armor)

Yes physically, if you are of the right class. Otherwise garners as much attention as the Shield.


Sword + Shield:
- poor stealth (i.e. gets you noticed)
- good damage and defense: superior if you are actually planning to fight in a melee.

Looks good!


So you can make a dexterous swordsman who does well with sword, or a strong quaterstaff wielder, or you can prefer having that sword and shield option for when you really have to go to melee. Or you can do what most outlaws probably end up doing: have both at 15 and then specialize.

Feh! Feh I say! They have to start somewhere! Start them off like Much and Robin, caught as poachers! 😈

SDLeary

One element I've been considering using is two-weapon fighting, which has enough similarities to quarterstaff styles that they could share mechanics at the scale of KAP.

Essentially (and from memory only) it would work like this: +3 shield and +3 damage @ -1 skill. So you have a partial shield benefit (overcome by axes) and an average die of damage, but are less likely to land a blow without superior skill.

And it's the same for quarterstaves: they're awesome if you know how to use them in a coordinated fashion, but if not you're better off pretending you have a long, poky stick or club, and enjoying the fact no one looks thrice at your walking stick.

--Khanwulf

Essentially (and from memory only) it would work like this: +3 shield and +3 damage @ -1 skill. So you have a partial shield benefit (overcome by axes) and an average die of damage, but are less likely to land a blow without superior skill.

I wouldn't increase the damage, but at the same time, I probably would allow 'shield' defense with the off-hand weapon, albeit at +3 Armor. And -1 to main skill seems OK. In short, duel-wielding is more about getting a bit of extra armor, rather than BETTER than what the Great weapons give currently (+1d6 damage = +3.5 damage). There is no way you can convince me that using two weapons at once allows you to hit harder than using an actual two-handed weapon.

True that. Though I will say that true European quarterstaves are no joke. Certainly not something that can be broken easily and can take quite the punishment. Of course, no good when the Sheriffs men bring out the crossbows.

The thing about swords breaking other weapons is a KAP convention, to give swords a special rule to make them more equal to axes and maces in mayhem. In reality, they'd never be able to break a quarterstaff with a swing of the sword, I agree.

Given that weapon breakage is not a bit deal in most Robin Hood stuff, I'd be tempted to ignore that rule, and just treat axes and maces as 'swords' as far as damage is concerned. After all, shield and armor are not going to be that big of a deal, either.



Another reason not to carry a shield! It encumbers you (-2 combat). ��


Given that pretty much all cultures around the world adopted the shield for warfare, it must have worked really well. So no, I don't think it should penalize your fighting ability. (The reason that late medieval knights didn't use it was more due to the fact that the armor was already good enough.)

Instead, I think it would be better to lean on the fact that it is amazingly annoying to carry around when you don't expect to need it. If you hang it from your back somehow, it likely swings around, clonks against things, and of course, the kite shield can even clip against your legs when you run. Giving people penalties for movement seems like a better idea, especially if they are running through the forest, that shield can hit/catch on something more easily.

Or simply tell the players that their characters won't be carrying shields, unless they really, really expect to having to fight in hand to hand. After all, you can't use one while shooting a bow anyway, which would be the main way of using it.

I do agree what you say about starting the PCs off as young, low-level poachers and letting them 'level up'.

I wouldn't increase the damage, but at the same time, I probably would allow 'shield' defense with the off-hand weapon, albeit at +3 Armor. And -1 to main skill seems OK. In short, duel-wielding is more about getting a bit of extra armor, rather than BETTER than what the Great weapons give currently (+1d6 damage = +3.5 damage). There is no way you can convince me that using two weapons at once allows you to hit harder than using an actual two-handed weapon.

Having watched two-weapon fighting versus various opponents I can say that the main point is to create additional angles of attack while providing a flexible item to interpose on defense. (Same as using any off-hand item: cloak, chair, candlestick, etc.)

Defense cannot match a shield--a big wooden wall is a wall, after all. But it can get in under another's defense more easily and score hits. Thus, +damage versus a -skill offset (-5% to hit at 20 skill, more at lower), with a nominal shield rating that can be overmatched by the heavy axe (which is, I think, still fair).

That's the logic, anyway.

--Khanwulf

I did up a two weapon rule:
The weapon wielded in the off (left) hand started at half the skill in the main (right) hand.
The off hand skill then improved as a separate skill from the main hand.


In combat the character rolled for both weapons at -5 to skill. He would use the better of his two rolls to determine if he won or lost, and did damage as per that weapon. On a double critical he had the choice of which weapon to score the critical with. If he got a partial success he got 1d6 protection. One drawback though was that he could fumble with a weapon even he rolled a success or critical with the other, in which case the character hit, but also suffered the effect of the fumble.