Why no AC bonus with two weapons style?

Remove all ads!

Why do you get an AC bonus of up to -2 in single weapon style but not two weapon style?

I know that this is only for game balance but is there really any way to justify it from a practical/realistic veiw?

If someone is holding a long sword and in the off hand a short sword then I assume, that it is possible to use the short sword to parry attack's as you could do with a shield, and use the long sword to attack at any openings in the target's defense.

 

Yes, but two weapon style assumes that you are using both weapons on the offensive. Have you ever tried attacking with a weapon in two hands? Especially if they are of equal lengths, it isn't easy.

In my real life experience with non-lethal weapons, I could easily take someone who is fighting offensively with two longswords, using only one longsword. Why? Because when they alternate which side they attack with they leave themselves wide open.

 

is it possible though to just use one hand to attack and another kept in a defensive positon to parry? I'm talking in real life and not the game in this.

 

Can be, and after defending an attack you can use it to counter the attack and use the other hand for finishing moves.

I guess two weapon fighting style should have a bonus to AC in real life since though it could make you vulnerable to ambush, you can easily shield yourself from blade weapons. That's because you can move both weapons faster than having any shield. It also increases your attack speed if you are using shorter ones ( but i'm not suggesting daggers to serve as shield ).

But their aren't any bonuses for AC in baldurs gate.

 

lol, daggers, short sword would be good enough I think.

 

I usually use a shorter sword in my offhand (in the aforementioned scenerio) when using a longsword for my primary. It's good for defense since, being a lefty, a shield is not as effective (sheild arm is not opposite opponents' weapon arm).

Ever tried deflecting an arrow or sling bolt with a blade? That's pretty damn hard. You're better of trying to dodge. Therefore it'd be a melee bonus only. That's why shields are more popular for defense. Plus it's easier to deflect a blade or mace with one.

I can use a shortsword or dagger to throw as a distraction or finishing move, which I like. Many people are easily taken in by an overhead feint with the longsword, which sets them up for a thrown shortsword in the gut. A favourite tactic of mine.

However, it still provides no bonus AC in BG2 since it is assumed that both are being used for offense.

 

What about using one handed weapons with two hands, if someone was using a single long sword then would it not be more effective to use it with both hands?

 

Sure, if that's your style. If we're talking a broadsword you could probably use the extra strength in your swing.

In 3rd edition rules you apply your strength bonus one and a half times when using a weapon in two hands to reflect this, but I'm not sure if this is reflected in BG2.

I prefer to use longswords that have enough room for two hands on them personally, so I have a little versatility.

You see Aragorn using his sword in two hands from time to time in the LotR movies, correct? They spared no expense making this movie realistic, including an expert in swordplay for the actors.

 

"You see Aragorn using his sword in two hands from time to time in the LotR movies"
Time to time? Next to all the damn time

I agree that fighting with two weapons should give an AC bonus to someone who has points in them. I also can not see why someone only gains ONE attack per round with their off hand. This applies when both weapons are small and of the same size, wouldn't you be able to strike just as well with either? Neverwinter nights allows the off-hand to gain more than one attack with the feat improved two-weapon fighting. Icewind Dale II has a weapon that when wielded in the off hand increases your AC.

I guess for balance issues they don't apply these, otherwise two weapon fighting would become too powerful. Frankly I think its too weak (yay, one more attack per round while increasing your THAC0 ).

 

Imagine getting around 11-13 attacks a round Using two weapons with improved haste, a Kensai and backed up by Improved Bard songx6?

That would add up to about 400-500 damage a round I'd think.

Fun? no. Boring? yes

I think an AC bonus for two weapon style would have been better then a measly 1 extra attack per round. and a damage and thac0 bonus for single weapon on top of the added chance of a critical hit would have been more believable then an AC bonus.

I think this would have been better then what we already have, and powerwise more balanced.

Is there a way to change this using SK or something else?

 

Only by binary editing of the baldur.exe file.

You'd rather have an AC bonus than be able to attack with an off-hand weapon? Take a shield, I fail to see what the big deal is (shields are much better for defense, IRL.)

 

Because one extra attack with one extra weapon feels like a ripoff. At least with the AC bonus you can use the extra effects of two weapons and still have a bit of protection.

I find that the sheilds in general are not very useful except for the AC bonus, when compared with some of the potential weapon combinations.

 

It's all about game balance. Giving all weapon styles different benefits.

Two-handed and Two-weapon style are both offensive styles. One gives more damage and the other gives more attacks.

Single-weapon style gives you the extra AC bonus and is especially beneficial to those classes that can't use shields or wield two-weapons, such as a bard or thief.

I think the balance is about right. How would you cater for those people that wanted two-weapon with extra attack or two-weapon with extra ac?

From a practical view point, with your free hand you could distract your opponent grab things to throw/block whilst duelling, etc, etc. It is much more feasible that you could block better with a free-hand rather than an extra weapon.

But simply put, you can't cater for every single eventuality and you must try and make a reasonable comprimise in what style are chosen.

Don't forget that most styles and kits weren't just magically created by Bioware for BG, but were available in PnP D&D as advanced kits. So all the balance and feasibility issues have to some degree been thought of in PnP before being brought over to BG.

 

using a free hand to throw things to distract someone, sounds a lot like something a rouge would do. I read someone's post about IWD2 and what I saw seemed to suggest the player having a larger variety of choices and free will in what style of fighting the player had, anyone know for certain?. But in any case this isnt IWD2.

 

It's possible to fight a longsword partly defensively and use it to parry, or use the other hand for balancing. Basically, that's the renaissance - WWI style of fighting.

It's impossible with a two-handed sword. Maybe you dodge, but your fighting style doesn't help that. Just try to parry a 2H sword strike with a 2H sword and you'll see. A two-handed blade is also harder to operate and when it falls without hitting the target, the wielder is much more vulnerable than a single-handed fighter who misses.

One could argue with staves not getting you AC bonuses if used two-handed. Personally, I'd rather take a staff than a mace and a shield, if defence is considered.

A spear can be fought defensively too, and with some skill also a halberd.

Two-handed swords and axes still don't go.

 

On a note with two handed swords I've done some research on medieval Britain and there are recordings of highlanders with their claymores being more dangerous to their allies beside them than the enemies in front of them simple due to the follow through.

And yes a quarterstaff 'should' give a melee AC bonus. Also, why can't a monk use one? Monks can use any weapon a thief can bar two handed. The only two handed weapon a thief can use is a quarterstaff (ignoring ranged weapons). Why stop monks from using a quarterstaff? It's possibly the first weapon anyone thinks of when talking about monks.

 

Yes, the first if not the only one. I see no reason why a monk should be allowed longsword. Perhaps scimitar, ninjato, wakizashi, katana - maybe. But why western-style weaponry? What about ranged attacks? I don't really see monks firing arrows or throwing bullets with a sling. Not the same story.

 

That really depends on what part of europe and what time period we consider the monks to be coming from. After all, the chinese did use straight-bladed longswords. Katanas were the weapons of the samurai. It depends on what we consider the monk to be in terms of real life.

Slings are westen-style weaponry? Since when were slings identified with any particular culture? That's like saying clubs are western-style, or sharpened sticks.

I doubt that the AC bonus for one weapon style is meant to reflect the use of the offhand so much as expertise with that one weapon. As armor became less practical and swords became lighter, new styles emerged. That is the root of fencing as we know it today.

If you really wanted to make it as real as possible you'd include a whole lot more different fighting styles. The BG2 rules are just a simplification. There is no option for using the offhand weapon defensively.

I can see there being a bonus to AC for mastering two weapon style, but it shouldn't be easy. In 3E D&D you need a whole other feat to get a bonus with two weapons, and it's only against a designated opponent. Not everyone has the potential to be Drizzt Do'Urden.

With proper training you could fight defensively with anything, but that isn't considered for BG2.

 

I totally agree, even Montolio(sp?) tells Drizzt that he can get caught up using two weapons at once. If they do the AC bonus, they should do 5 levels in 2 Weapon Fighting. You could think of each point as a level of mastery with 2 Weapons. After the first original 3, the 2 after give you AC bonuses...