>
> > Generally it seems to be two identical weapons, two swords,
> > two iron maces,
> > two "hooks", etc. (See Crunchy Tiger, Fried Dragon for more examples.)
>
> Miyamoto Musashi, of course, argues elegantly for the two-sword style.
>
> I reckon that two identical weapons work better becuase the balance is the
> same and you can spend less time adjusting and thinking about your own
> movement, balance and behaviour.
Sword and (parrying)dagger works beautifully. Thow weapons of equal length is the choise of an ambidexterous fighter or a martial artist. It gives you more options, especially if you don't favor one side to the other.
> Of course, the down side is that if you need to take heavy defensive action,
> the Improv penalties are probably going to be large. So I think that if
> there is a mechanical difference between the two, it is that the two-weapon
> style is liable to greater defensive improv penalties at the GM's
> discretion.
One can do nice desperate cross-parries (crossing the weapons and catching the attackers weapon) but I agree it's not as easy as hiding behind a shield.
-Adept
Powered by hypermail