So dual wielding never seemed very good in this game. Two one handed weapons usually cost more than one two handed weapon, and the two handed weapon is better anyway. So I was thinking about possibly using jungle rules. I want dual wielding to be effective, but I also don't want to break the game.

My idea is to allow a second attack against an opponent if the initial attack failed. however, the second attack would cost 2 or 3 fatigue to execute and you would have to use the offhand weapon. For example, Varikas the dead has a sword and a dagger equipped. He declares an advance action, and attacks a beastman with the sword. He fails to kill the monster so he spends 2 ( or 3?) fatigue and is allowed to attack the beastman with his dagger.

What do youse guys think. Should I use this jungle rule? should i change it at all? Should I add a buff to the OL as well? Could this be allowed in tandem with offhand bonuses.

I also like this idea because it makes one handed ranged weapons slightly more powerful. Ive always wanted to use the throwing knives, but they are so completely useless that no one in their right mind would. Now maybe it might make sense.

Anyways, Gracias por sus respuestas.

Minq said:

So basically, dual-wielding becomes a free Aim on every attack, that also switches some of the dice involved. It's certainly more powerful than the RAW version.

I don't know that it would be too powerful, since the second attack only happens if the first one misses (so heroes aren't putting out extra attacks worth of damage.) It does somewhat weaken the OL's Dodge though; even if he successfully makes the first attack miss, the hero then gets to attack again and potentially hit anyway.

Or, you could rule that this second attack counts as a "re-roll" effect, even though it's using different dice. Then a Dodge card played on the first attack would be exactly as effective as normal since a roll cannot be re-rolled more than once. It would also give you a basis for comparison against other re-roll effects to determine any odd ruling questions that might come up in play.

Try it out and let us know how it goes.

Steve-O said:

You have a rather curious definition of "free" if it costs 2-3 fatigue. I don't think a comparison to Aim is very useful, either; an Aim lets you pick and choose which dice to reroll. If you're not keeping ANY die results from the first swing, it's just a separate attack.

I'm also very unclear on the exact proposed triggering conditions; Minq says the second attack would be allowed if the first attack "fails", which is not a technical term but could plausibly be read as "misses", but then his example says the first attack "fails to kill the monster ", which makes it sound like something completely different.

Regardless, I don't think an extra attack with your off-hand weapon is even worth 3 fatigue most of the time; it would make starting with 2 swords somewhat appealing, but under most circumstances your off-hand will be a lot less powerful than your main weapon. In advanced campaigns, you can sometimes get ridiculous amounts of fatigue (and cherry-pick the exact treasures you want), but in vanilla the standard value of a half-action is about 4 movement points, which is worth less than 4 fatigue; so if an off-hand attack is worth significantly less than "less than 4 fatigue", paying 2-3 for it is probably not something I would do very often (though of course some heroes have much more fatigue available than others).

Overall, it seems like a very complicated solution to a rather simple and minor problem; why not just give weapons better off-hand bonuses? FFG has already moved in that direction with the Morningstar in Tomb of Ice , a shop weapon costing 75 coins with an off-hand bonus of "+1 damage and 1 free surge".

I guess that doesn't help one-handed ranged weapons - but the one-handed ranged weapons with green dice don't really need any help, and I don't think your solution is going to make Throwing Knives appealing.

I did mean "fail to kill the monster" rather than miss all together. The reason changing the offhand bonuses to be higher doesn't appeal to me is that the stats are printed on the cards. In order to easily know all the offhand stats, I'd have to make a cheat sheet or something, and come up with the new (and balanced) stats for every single one handed weapon in the game. Plus improving the offhand bonuses doesn't affect ranged weapons. Burning half your fatigue for an extra attack, provided your first attack didn't kill the monster (miss or not), is basically what I meant.

Also, I don't have RTL or SOB, so I don't really care about the nuances of the advanced campaign.

So (antistone), How much fatigue would you be willing to pay for an extra offhand attack?

Well, I guess 2 fatigue might be worth it under just the right conditions. If you've got a Dagger and 2 black dice, in a game with 4 heroes, you've got a 62% chance to kill a skeleton or a 39% chance to kill a bane spider, which is probably worth 2 fatigue - if you happen to already be next to it - though it's borderline. Only a 15% chance to kill a beastman, which is much more questionable, but I might try it under some circumstances.

But if you're fighting, say, an ogre, that attack only has a 40% chance to penetrate armor , let alone kill the target. You'd be better off saving your fatigue to add power dice to your main weapon, even if it only cost 1.

Now, sure, it's better if you've got a better off-hand weapon...but you're giving up a potion just to upgrade your Dagger to a Sword (which has a worse off-hand bonus in the late game), and if you actually want to wield a treasure weapon in your off-hand you're sacrificing a lot of wealth.

One Fist gives up his off-hand for a Red+Green melee attack that costs no fatigue or money and can be used regardless of his declared action or what he does with his main hand, and that's a useful ability, but I've never seen anyone rate him among the best heroes in the game. An attack with a Dagger is weaker than that. If you actually had to give up your normal off-hand bonus in order to get the option of an off-hand attack, then with a Dagger, it wouldn't be worth it against most enemies even if it were free.

Of course, there will be some situation with a weird treasure draw or a clever strategy where it suddenly becomes amazingly powerful. That just tells me the house rule is dangerous.

And while dual-wielding isn't very good in Descent, it's not excessively bad. Two-handed weapons are stronger, but starting with a one-handed weapon doesn't leave you much worse off in the short term, and puts you in a better position if you happen to draw a one-handed treasure from a chest (whether a shield or a weapon). That flexibility is worth something.

Yeah, now that Ive played a short quest with these rules, I'm inclined to agree. Its just not a very good solution.

In my group, no one ever dual wields weapons. They either go two handed or use a shield. So my question is what can I do to make dual wielding more worth while? It'd also be cool to have this bonus (whatever it is) apply to one handed ranged weapons.

You could try a very small generic power increase - like "once per attack, you may reroll one black die".

Hmm. Yeah, I guess i'll try that, and maybe come up with some other generic buffs. Thanks for your answers. Asi, eso es todo.