In 1st Edition (and I'm reasonably certain in OSRIC as well), a second weapon in hand gives one full additional attack per round with the offhand. The mainhand attack rate is wholly unaffected. The only penalty is that mainhand attacks are made at -2 to-hit, and the offhand attack is made with -4 to-hit. These to-hit penalties can be mitigated by dexterity reaction adjustment (up to +0).max_vale wrote:On top of this; what happens with a second weapon in hand?
Well this is, after all, the RPG theory forum. As far as practicality goes, if a DM chooses to use the RNR or some variant, then that's the rule and, as you've stated, I'll either play or drop out. Speaking more in general, it's rare that I come upon a DM with a rule so idiosyncratic and counter-intuitive that it prompts me to quit. And this certainly isn't one of them. So I suppose it's not a "big deal" to me, either.Alethan wrote:I applaud your passion for the subject, Xax.
But I've got to be honest with you; I can't be bothered to worry about this topic as much as you are.
If I'm a player in a game, I follow the GM's rules for the game. If I don't like his rules or his GM style, then I don't have to play his game. Simple.
If I'm the GM, then I'll provide details about what the rule is and expect my players to follow it. If they don't want to follow it, then it wouldn't bother me one bit if they left the game to find one more suited their play style.
It really isn't that big a deal to me.
Well, you certainly got me thinking about it for my own house rules. I like the idea of making the additional attacks only take place on consecutive attack rounds with the same weapon. It seems quite logical.Xaxyx wrote: My intention when creating this thread was merely to explore the rule, and perhaps demonstrate for DMs who are employing this rule, or are considering its use, that it has the potential for some real silliness, thus causing more harm than good. The passion you've identified is all focused upon critiquing the rule's effects; nothing more. I sympathize entirely with the purpose behind the rule. I simply feel that it not only fails to accomplish the goal toward which it's purposed, it in actuality just makes things worse for DM and player alike.
Hey, now! Don't you go hijacking my hijack! Why I oughta...max_vale wrote:I know as both a DM and a player; it seems like every few sessions something comes up where situations come up where everybody is surprised by a rule (or lack thereof) for a given situation.
Some examples that pop up in my head are:
Forget not the illustrious half-elf, who can also be a cleric, though sadly no higher than 5th level (though unlimited in druid; go figure...)-On the Classes available to each race in the 1st Edition Player's Handbook; only Humans and Half Orcs can be Clerics. NPC Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes can be Clerics....odd that they'd allow the Half Orc this option; but not the other Demi Human races....
Love that Gary!Of course; this also brings to mind the wonderful Gary quote about how the game is up to the individuals playing it and to use what works and throw out what doesn't!
