You know, I’ve come around to The position Devin stated above. Without TFF the only real benefit is the ability to change weapon lengths if you are at a disadvantage. Which isnt so different from choking up on a weapon.
I am sorry to say, but you guys are missing the whole point of the question.
Fighting with two weapons to cover various striking distances is in the BWG book. Using weapons of different length is not the question, but actual dual-wielding, aka striking with two weapons independently.
And I am not questioning what is written (or not) in The Book ™, but trying to understand the mechanics behind the rules (the WHY behind the HOW).
Alright, chief. As you have hopefully already understood, you cannot double-strike without TFFT. Why? Well, you could ask Luke, but he could make a full-time career out of answering “Whys” and I don’t think he wants to. So here are some explanations. Take your pick, or make up your own answer.
- In reality, we see an awful lot of fighters wielding one knife, one stick, one bottle, one cleaver. Using two instead means more damage and a better chance to hit (by traditional game-logic, at least). So why is one knife a more common choice of armament than two? It’s not because of a world knife shortage…
- Burning Wheel’s combat mechanics differ from e.g. D&D’s. The way hits and damage work in D&D requires a robust set of rules around dual-striking. In BW, it’s just not as advantageous, more of a stunt than an optimal choice.* An optimized single-weapon strike is often more effective than a double-weapon swing.
Actually, let’s break that out a little farther, both mechanically and physically. With a single sword-stroke from an average sword-monkey, I’m rolling five dice against Ob 1. Assume I get two extra successes for a Mark hit. That’s, say, a B7 hit, a Midi or Severe wound. That might end the fight right there, it certainly gains me a significant advantage. If our sword-monkey is instead a supa-kewl ninja with two (2) ninja-swerdz in his hands,** he’s splitting his five dice into a pool of three and a pool of two. The most likely outcome here is one Incidental hit, closely followed by two Incidentals, with a small chance of either a Mark and an Incidental or just a Mark. The Incidentals are likely to be Superficial wounds, which means his opponent does not take a Steel test and is now at +1Ob (for either one or two hits). The Mark is as above. Overall, I’d rather swing once: I might get a Serious hit, which would probably end the fight. I can potentially hit even with an Ob penalty or over a Block/Avoid. And all I’m sacrificing is the chance at an extra Superficial wound, which is a nice bonus but not a fight-winner.
In physical terms, the BW action is very short while the D&D combat round is quite long. For this reason, it’s sensible to figure somebody can deliver two full-force blows in a D&D round (hell, a trained fighter can easily do so with just one weapon so I’m not sure what the whole dual-wielding extra-attacks thing is even about…) It’s not sensible in a BW action: there isn’t enough time to put your body behind two blows. You’ll be slapping them with swings from the arm instead of putting your back into it and slamming them. Personally, I’d rather you clapped me with a bat in each hand than suffer a single full-body John Henry swing from one of those bats.
From your tone here, it sounds like you want the forum to settle your argument with your fellow player, or to agree with you that the rules as written are wrong about double-ninja-swordtime. “You guys are missing the whole point of the question” is a bit rich when you are not the OP and your interpretation of “the whole point of the question” concerns a question that was not, in fact, asked in the original post. I have this uncomfortable feeling from the byplay in this thread that Lazos does not want to be part of your doublemint dueling, and that you are becoming frustrated at our collective reluctance to tell him to shut up and let you have more swords. I hope I’m wrong about that. Be that as it may, I’m thinking this thread might not be making anyone happy anymore. Perhaps you’d like to have a beer with Lazos and discuss your game, if it is your game that is at issue here? Or, if this ain’t about your game but just your love of extra swords, perhaps you’d like to start a thread in the Sparks forum, which is the correct place to discuss hacks and house rules.
*Notice how all the veteran players here are talking about TFFT as “the thing that lets you Block and Strike” rather than “The thing that gives you the double-strike?” That’s because in BW, Block and Strike is way cooler than a double-strike.
**The other two are in his teeth and on his back, respectively.
The “why” is simply to recognize that effective use of a sword-and-board or dual weapons* requires proper training to be practical.
- Nearly every real-world usage of dual weapons is about using the offhand to parry or to handle if someone gets close. Even among the exceptions I know of, I don’t know of any serious training for making multiple strikes, especially at independent targets.
Play nice, gentlemen.
I apologize for coming across in a wrong way.
There is no argument to settle, we were just both interested in the mechanics. Therefore I thank you all for your input in the matter.
And, yes Block&Strike is way cooler.
Cheers, mates.
You need to read up on “Case of Rapier”… it’s actually rather common historically, and the techniques in the 1650’s period manuals for Case DO involve multiple simultaneous or near simultaneous strikes… especially if you’ve cleared one of their weapons… in order to limit their ability to parry both effectively.
But it was a dueling technique, not a battlefield one.
Hmm, interesting. I might have to do some research on that.
There’s also the option of FoRKing one weapon skill into the other, if the player comes up with a cool “dual wield move.” Although, oddly, that won’t work if you aren’t using mixed weapons.
Hi guys,
I’ve been thinking a little about special styles of weapon training since my first read through of the fight rules in BWG. I like and agree with the fact that the attacker is giving their best effort, no matter which hand used, and no matter how many weapons they have at hand. But how do you account for “special training” like perhaps some Kung fu dual weapon styles? I thought:
- Don’t allow any benefit, as per the rules as written.
- Allow special style training (via a trait?) that improves the weapons speed so that more attacks can be made before “resting” the weapon. This isn’t game breaking, and allows the representation of a flurry of attacks. It also changes the rhythm of the weapons normal use, which may be be strategically advantageous to the wielder. I think this might be pretty close to the actual benefit of performing a two weapon style over using one weapon.
Just some thoughts 
Please be gentle - its my first post.
Ps: really enjoying reading about BWG. Can’t wait to introduce it to my group.
Welcome to the forum danu!
I think you should probably post your idea in the Sparks forum if you want feedback.
fix
Wises?
I have a religious character in my game that occasionally justifies a Doctrine FoRK into his weapon skills. “I adopt the 37th Sacred Form of the Sword as described in the Codex of Kicking Daemonic Ass, by Saint Cheesemonger.”