Hello! I'm new to the system but excited to begin my first campaign with a few friends.

I can't seem to find any rules on a knight wielding two weapons at once. Would a knight have to have a separate combat skill for a Florentine fighting style? Or would each two-weapon combat roll incur a multiple-action penalty? Or is there a different mechanic involved?

I apologize if there's a rule on this buried in the text somewhere. If you could point me to it, I would appreciate it.

There's nothing in the rules that deals with this subject - well at least not 4th or 5th ed - but there are plenty of house rules on the subject. For my part, I'm using a very basic setup; if you wield two weapons you can choose which one to use each round. That's it! Not too inspiring I admit. The advantage being that a PK can use a weapon more suited to the situation without suffering the penalty of changing and they do also have a backup should one of them be dropped or broken.

The problem really is one of game balance. Too good an advantage and everyone will use it, too bad and no one will. I've yet to hit on something that walks the fine line between both. Odd I admit, especially when you consider that in many movies, 2 weapon style is used almost exclusively. eg, from memory I struggle to think of a single sword+shield combat - on foot - in all of Excalibur.

Florentine is so common in movies because it looks cool – no shield to block the views of the cool moves.

Problem: It was rarely used in real medieval Western Europe because the blocking sword gets all chewed up. Think how in Viking holmgangs the duelists were *limited* to only three shields each – taking that kind of damage on a sword gets very expensive, very quickly.

This is also a case where the exceptions prove the rule. For example, the Renaissance had twin rapiers, but there you were deflecting mostly-light thrusting weapons as opposed to heavy cutting weapons. And Richard the Lionheart managed to pull off spear-and-axe – but those are cheap weapons, and Richard was very, very good.

I'm trying to use something more concrete without unbalancing the system in favor of Florentine style. I think most systems handle that by imposing a damage/accuracy penalty to the off-hand weapon.

I was considering also increasing the threshold for weapon-breaking while fighting Florentine -- upping it to a weapon breaking on a 2 instead of a 1, for instance. But then there's still a problem of what to do about swords.

In our game, we run with a virtue/flaw system, where "two weapons" is a virtue you can "buy" as both major and minor. This thing is ofc tangled up in loads of other rules, and wouldn't fit your needs. So, here's what I suggest (playtested and ready):

1. Make "Two Weapons" a new skill, and use the lowest of that skill and the regular weapon skills when rolling in combat (either for both the main hand weapon or just the off hand one, depending on how cruel you are as a GM).

2. You must also decide if the two weapon rolls are "individual" weapon rolls, both pitted against your enemy's weapon roll (enabling you to hit twice in one round), or if the extra weapon just gives you two skill rolls and let you choose the best result.

// M

I don't remember where, but some book (4th ed. or earlier obviously) said that if you wielded two weapons it counted as one attack with the off-hand weapon adding +1d6 damage (and nothing else). I think it was one of those optional side-box rules from one of the 4th supplements but I'm drawing a blank as to which one.

jolt

What exactly do you mean by Florentine--cut and thrust style (sword and dagger)? I'm familar with the Bolognese school (Achille Marozzo etc), but I've not hear of Florentine style before.

If you wanted to bring more real world fighting styles into Pendragon, the most relevant would seem to be the Longsword (either of Germanic or Italian tradition). By Longsword I mean hand and a half sword with halfswording giving better damage versus armor. The easy thing to do would be just to treat it as a regular sword but allow it to have +1d6 when used two handed.

There's nothing in the rules that deals with this subject


I have failed to find any historical or literary use of such, hence, no rules.

Movies, comic books and kung fu knights do not count.

There's nothing in the rules that deals with this subject


I have failed to find any historical or literary use of such, hence, no rules.

Movies, comic books and kung fu knights do not count.



I am also unaware of heavily armored knights using two weapons with any frequency. By the time of full plate, the longsword used two handed (on foot) would have been standard.

From the 1500's on, sword and dagger techniques (look up Achille Marozzo on wikipedia) were common, but not for armored fighting. You really couldn't hurt some one in full plate with a one handed sword.

What exactly do you mean by Florentine--cut and thrust style (sword and dagger)? I'm familar with the Bolognese school (Achille Marozzo etc), but I've not hear of Florentine style before.

If you wanted to bring more real world fighting styles into Pendragon, the most relevant would seem to be the Longsword (either of Germanic or Italian tradition). By Longsword I mean hand and a half sword with halfswording giving better damage versus armor. The easy thing to do would be just to treat it as a regular sword but allow it to have +1d6 when used two handed.


Honestly, I've just heard two-weapon fighting referred to as "Florentine" many times. I couldn't tell you the origin, unfortunately. Sword and dagger is a common pairing, yes.

Historically, I've heard only of the parrying dagger, which appeared toward the end of the 15th century. Still, its name indicates it was not usually used for striking.

Thanks for all of the input.

Florentine refers to a variation of Renaissance-era swordplay where the fighter would wield a rapier in each hand. Typically, the rapiers would be carried in a wooden case rather than in traditional scabbards.

I was positive that some book, at some point, included an optional rule for a weapon in each hand. That's going to drive me crazy until I pore through every single Pendragon book I have. *sigh*

jolt

Ah, ok. I've heard that referred to as, "Case of Rapiers".
NT

I was positive that some book, at some point, included an optional rule for a weapon in each hand. That's going to drive me crazy until I pore through every single Pendragon book I have. *sigh*


I think it was the Tales of Tournament or some such, Adventure of the Circlet of Gold, where one of the opponents used two weapons at once. The rules were simple:
1) Have additional skill, Two-Weapon (combination) Fighting. For example, Two Weapon (Axe & Sword) Fighting.
2) Roll vs. the LOWEST of all applicable skills. For example, Axe, Sword, Two Weapon (Axe & Sword) Fighting.
3) On partial success, you get no benefit since you do not have a shield.
4) On a success, you hit with both weapons (against same opponent, see Bear), with shield+armor+armor of honor protecting against each hit separately.

My players considered for a brief moment the hassle of needing at least two skills to raise to above 20, compared to just one, and decided it was not worth it.

My players considered for a brief moment the hassle of needing at least two skills to raise to above 20, compared to just one, and decided it was not worth it.


As a rules lawyer & min-maxxer, I can assure you that if I were to need two skills (minimum) and not get a shield bonus on the off chance that I would get to apply more damage, I would straight up laugh in your face. Even as tough as my PK is (38HP, 24CON, 6d6+2DAM), there is NO WAY that I would give up 6 points of damage reduction via my shield (at least until it is sundered by a Saxon axe).

I can't seem to find any rules on a knight wielding two weapons at once. Would a knight have to have a separate combat skill for a Florentine fighting style? Or would each two-weapon combat roll incur a multiple-action penalty? Or is there a different mechanic involved?

I apologize if there's a rule on this buried in the text somewhere. If you could point me to it, I would appreciate it.


There is a two-weapon fighting in the tournament of dreams supplement, but it's unbalanced and should not be used.
In my opinion, shield and sword fighting is superior to two weapon fighting, swashbuckling movies be damned, and two-weapon fighting does not belong in an arthurian game except as an occasional exotic thing to be encountered - say, the odd faerie knight.

If you want a balanced rule, something like this: allow players to fight with two weapons, and each turn, have them choose which they are attacking with. That's the skill they use. The advantage is: if they drop a weapon or break one, they still have one in hand and suffer no round of having to recover. The disadvantage is: just like two-handed sword, they get no shield.

Note: using a weapon defensively is already a part of the system. When you make an opposed roll, you are both attacking and defending, and if you roll higher than your foe, it is likely because your defence was good enough to allow you to get an opportunity to strike.
If off-handed weapons were allowed a protection similar to shields, then 2-handed swords should get them too, because authentic historical two-handed sword fighting has lots of defensive aspects to it.
So, a second, off-hand weapon does not grant extra armour protection. If you want that, use a shield.

My point on the whole 2-weapon thing is this:

It wasn't done in medieval times, except (perhaps) in extremely exceptional case (please point me exactly where it does occur, if you know of any!)

If it wasn't done, there is a good reason: it was not effective.

Hence, there is no rule for it.

I don't like to simply say: cannot be done.
The rules, if any, will allow it, but will reveal why no one does it

In other words: you can do this, but it is extremely difficult, and thus so rare as to not be done.

Two examples come to mind from (early) Medieval times:

- Prince Murtaugh, a son of Brian Boru, fought with two swords at Clontarf AD 1014.
- Harald Hardrada, a King of Norway and a claimant to the English crown, fought with two axes at Stamford Bridge (and got killed by an arrow in the throat, should have had a shield to block it!) AD 1066. (And I can't find the reference for this... I suspect I got the two axes from the novel King's Man, since the saga speaks only of a sword.)

From classical times, we have the gladiators called dimachaeri, who fought with two swords.

But yeah, from the fact that it was apparently very very rare, we can draw the conclusion that sword + shield was universally accepted as the better deal.

AWWW....now i will NEVER be like Drizzt Do'Urden!!!!!! thanks a lot Greg! >:(

- Harald Hardrada, a King of Norway and a claimant to the English crown, fought with two axes at Stamford Bridge (and got killed by an arrow in the throat, should have had a shield to block it!) AD 1066.


Legend has it that as Harald lay dying, he took a look at the arrow that killed him and commented that it was an excellent piece of craftsmanship. (I read about it in R. Ewart Oakeshott's "Dark Age Warrior".)

- Harald Hardrada, a King of Norway and a claimant to the English crown, fought with two axes at Stamford Bridge (and got killed by an arrow in the throat, should have had a shield to block it!) AD 1066.


Legend has it that as Harald lay dying, he took a look at the arrow that killed him and commented that it was an excellent piece of craftsmanship. (I read about it in R. Ewart Oakeshott's "Dark Age Warrior".)


Of course Harald at the Battle of Hastings declared "Put that fncking bow down you'll have someone's eye out"

My suggestion for two weapons in PenDragon is thus:
a) add +5 skill
b) if using two dissimilar weapons then the one that hits (if you win) has the LEAST favourable rules


Thinking is thus (for a)
Use a Great Weapon get +1d6 damage
Use a Shield get 6AP
Thus forgoing both I'd grant a simple bonus and +5 seems simplest
And my (VERY limited) experience with escrima showed me that there is a bit of a bonus in faling away with two weapons rather than one

Also (for b)
Cheeky Barsteward players will choose the cheekiest combination possible
Unbalanced flailing combination would lead to the florentine dude hoping for the best


Provisos:
I bodged this to run a Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe game using PD so I'm not disregarding Greg's assertion two weapons weren't used in combo in the (not really) Arthurian period.

Blade and dagger is nice and easy since the only time I've seen players want to use it is with foil and dagger and I'd treat the foil as a dagger anyway (especially for damage and for fragility vs. a man sized sword)

Use a Great Weapon get +1d6 damage
Use a Shield get 6AP
Thus forgoing both I'd grant a simple bonus and +5 seems simplest
And my (VERY limited) experience with escrima showed me that there is a bit of a bonus in faling away with two weapons rather than one


Flailing away with two weapons, yes that's easy. Blocking incoming shots while doing so (including instantly figuring out *which* weapon you're diverting to defense), that's very much not so easy.

Also, escrima uses wooden sticks, which are cheaply replaced and have no edges to muck up when you block imperfectly. Whether your character is in Narnia, Arthurian England, or Hundred-Years-War France, he'll need to regularly replace his chewed-up sword. Very expensive, and hard to reliably do on campaign. Given that, is your PK *really* going to learn such a weapons form, and with those limits is he *really* going to find someone to teach it to him? I think not.

My suggestion for two weapons in PenDragon is thus:
a) add +5 skill
b) if using two dissimilar weapons then the one that hits (if you win) has the LEAST favourable rules


Thinking is thus (for a)
Use a Great Weapon get +1d6 damage
Use a Shield get 6AP
Thus forgoing both I'd grant a simple bonus and +5 seems simplest

A +5 skill bonus is colossal in pendragon, and much bigger than either of the benefits your mention above.
I don't condone the use of two weapons, since it is clearly an inferior form of combat during the period mentioned. In the west, it only became 'common' once gunpowder had rendered armour obsolete - a shield, or a great weapon, are both clearly superior to two weapon combos when opponents might have armour and be wielding the kind of heavier sword and other weapons needed to harm someone in that armour.

But if you were to use two weapon combos, I'd suggest giving the same kind of benefit as the two things you describe losing: a damage bonus like the great weapon, or a shield bonus - or maybe, a smaller bonus but both at once. E.g +2-3 AP and +1d3 damage. Or maybe, the option on any given round of getting +d6 damage or d6 AP.

Also, escrima uses wooden sticks, which are cheaply replaced and have no edges to muck up when you block imperfectly. Whether your character is in Narnia, Arthurian England, or Hundred-Years-War France, he'll need to regularly replace his chewed-up sword. Very expensive, and hard to reliably do on campaign. Given that, is your PK *really* going to learn such a weapons form, and with those limits is he *really* going to find someone to teach it to him? I think not.


To be fair, as Al was talking about using this for his Narnia game, you could argue it's a high fantasy world where weapon breakage, damage etc is simply ignored.

Having said that, I think the +5 bonus suggestion is simply too high. In most other games, fighting with two weapons reduces your skill. If your game really must have this tactic - or your players insist that they should be able to try it - I would go with noir's suggestion. Roll 2 dice and choose the highest one as your attack. Fumbles trump both rolls. You could also impose a slight negative modifier for using two weapons at the same time.

Id be tempted to allow a second attack roll with a penalty to both rolls (say -5/-10) if I was to use such, or alternatively class it as a completely seperate weapon skill with a damage bonus... just my two pennorth

Gosh. What a reaction. Thanks for the responses chaps.

Rule 1 of houserules of course: Just because a ruling seems elegant and logical to the rule's author don't mean that t'is to others


+5 too powerful: Interesting observation, I've had too many of my characters lose a round and take damage to even think of forgoing a shield. To the point that I'd never use a Great Weapon or the Attack! option if on even terms with my opponent or even if I outnumbered him and I thought my opponent might allocate a significant portion of their skill against me. Using a Greatspear (and thus losing my Shield) against a mounted chap gives me a +5 bonus (or negates the -5 low ground penalty anyway), two-sword infantry vs. a horseman I wouldn't give the +5 two-sword bonus, just from gut instinct. I like the simple + or - 5 for most modifiers in PD. To the point that I round the + or - 3 to 5 so I may well have inflated beyond what would be normal in other games. +2? +3? hmmm

'Flailing' escrima: Poor choice of words on my part, I meant to (quite accurately) denigrate my (lack of) skill. People who know what they are doing have two weapons with which to strike, feint, block, parry, et al.

Cheap escrima sticks: No doubt a competent (or desparate) escrimador could pick up any old stick-shaped device but a decent rattan or seasoned hardwood baton isn't just cheap or hanging around either.

Damaged swords: for sure blade edge on blade edge is a quick way to chew up a sword (which is why Kenjutsuka block on the back, low carbon steel and therefore softer and tougher side of their weapons rather than edge to edge if they possibly can). If I bring in a rule to reflect that I'd need to do it for others as well (especially for someone without a Shield) and worry about versus sword or non-sword (coz an axe or mace has a nice haft for me to block or strike I don't HAVE to hit a horrible cutting edge with my sword)

Most games: most games do seem to penalise skill for a second attack, but most games don't have PD's elegant one opposed roll blackjack combat mechanism.

High Fantasy: PD is my personal default ruleset (mainly coz I'm too lazy to learn another system) but I'm not sure that I'd use the two-sword bonus in a grittier milieu.

+5 too powerful: Interesting observation, I've had too many of my characters lose a round and take damage to even think of forgoing a shield. To the point that I'd never use a Great Weapon or the Attack! option if on even terms with my opponent or even if I outnumbered him and I thought my opponent might allocate a significant portion of their skill against me. Using a Greatspear (and thus losing my Shield) against a mounted chap gives me a +5 bonus (or negates the -5 low ground penalty anyway), two-sword infantry vs. a horseman I wouldn't give the +5 two-sword bonus, just from gut instinct. I like the simple + or - 5 for most modifiers in PD. To the point that I round the + or - 3 to 5 so I may well have inflated beyond what would be normal in other games. +2? +3? hmmm


Just on that topic... I would guess that you are currently playing in the early part of the campaign, Uther or Anarchy - as am I by the way - with relatively weak armour, nothing better than chain. As better armour becomes available I can see the need for a shield being lessened. Yes 6 extra points of armour is always welcome but there comes a point when it may not be as welcome as the +1d6 a two handed weapon brings. For example full gothic plate with an AP value of 21 points - raised to 24 with the chivalry bonus - is well above the average 5d6 damage threshold, even without a shield.

For example full gothic plate with an AP value of 21 points

What? Really? Is that in the new ('new') rules? If so that'll teach me to assume that everything stayed the same and that Gothic Plate is 'only' 18AP.

By the way, reasonable and correct assumption about the Arthurian PD I've played.

I guess you could say it's in the "new" rules.

The Book of Knights and Ladies - a supplement by Greg, released by his old GSPendragon company - has the AP value of full gothic plate and frog helm listed as 21 points. And of course, Greg's new "super" plate armour has an AP of 22! Not sure if that's canon but he did mention it on the forums a few weeks back.

Edit.. here's the link for that armour, read Greg's comment, 2nd in the thread. http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=931.0

A suggestion made by one of my (semi) regular pendragon players today was that the two weapon bonus does not apply if one's foe has a shield.