Dual wield vs. 2 handed weapons-- Ironing out house rules.

In my group's next campaign we plan on using some rules to make armor a viable option, as well as balance out a few weapon issues. One thing that kind of sticks out is how weapons that require 2 hands seem so inferior to taking 2 one handed weapons. It's hard to justify taking a halberd or flail when you could get an extra attack along with whatever abilities two hand-weapons come with.

One proposed solution is -1 to hit with the second, or off-hand, weapon. This brings up the issue of which weapon should be considered the "offhand" one. This seems like something that would cause disputes to me, so I'm wondering how you guys decide this if you use this rule yourselves.

We're not really fans of nerfing things either. Rather than make dual wielding worse we'd like to bring 2 handed weapons (or rather weapons that can't be used with another weapon) up to the same level, specifically halberds, spears, flails, and morningstars. For this I've been brainstorming some changes/additions to make these weapons more effective:

Spears: Cost reduced to 5 gc (Shields give +2 save in CC, so they're definitely viable, they just seem to cost a bit much for what they do)

Halberds: In addition to +1 str, the halberdier strikes first rather than simultaneously in CC if the initiatives are tied.

Flails/Morningstars: In addition to +1/+2 str for the 1st round of CC, if the opponent is hit, they suffer -1 WS (and/or -1 initiative?) for the rest of the turn do to the heavy impact throwing them off balance.


I'm interested to see what you all think about these. Thanks guys!

In my experience the -1 to hit for only the offhand weapon is not enough to promote other weapon / shield combinations. In my group we play with -1 for both weapons, and even this is still mathematically better than attacking with one weapon. Add in the low cost of the weapons and two weapons per model are still the norm, though halberds, flails and shields make at least some appearances.
For armour we eliminated any movement penalties and armour-ignoring critical hits, as well as significantly lowering the costs for armour. Now you see a lot of armour on the heroes after a few games. Armour for henchmen is still too costly for most warbands, though.
For your weapon ideas:
The spear idea seems fine, maybe add a +1 to ini to make it more usefull with the "new" strike first rules? Or maybe let them attack from the second row (in base contact with a friendly fighting model).

Halberds: Maybe add an additional -1 to armour save like for the axe?
Flails: -1 iniative is meaningless, either they have already attacked you or they will strike after you anyway (ignoring multiple combats), so -1 to WS should be better.

You could additionally try something a bit more radical such as a fumble table ina ddition to the -1 to hit on both hand weapon attacks. A bit like the blackpowder misfire chart. E.g. If a dice to hit rolls/reduced to a roll of 1 or less in combat roll on the following chart:

5-6 - Hits as normal
3-4 - Misses target and cannot attack with any remaining attacks that turn
1-2 - The attack is resolved against the fumbling warrior.

Have a generic skill that heroes can use to ignore these results: Dual Wielding.

It means Henchmen are discouraged from using 2 hand weapons as the skill is above them unless they get the lads got talent.

It could work, though the table would have to be refined and tested through properly.

Ram.

As for armor, shields give +2 to armor save when used with a hand weapon in CC, all armor costs are about 25% lower, and str modifiers to saves start at str 5 instead of str 4. The hope is to make shields attractive for people to ditch the 2nd weapon for shield & weapon. Just making shields better doesn't entirely solve the problem, though.

Last campaign we thought it was ridiculous that a charging person and spear wielder would strike simultaneously, so it was unanimously decided that spears should strike 1st in the 1st round no matter what. I forgot to mention this in my last post . However, I like the idea of +1 initiative with along with the current ruling, it would give spears an advantage over charging enemies with similar initiative, but would still allow for very fast ones (like elves) to get through and strike first.

The fumble chart is kind of a cool idea, but perhaps too harsh. From what you guys are telling me, it seems like -1 to hit with both hands is the way to go.

Has anyone considered the option of enemy warriors receiving a +1 bonus to hit dual wielding warriors? That would make dual wielding risky, but still quite rewarding, and reflect the danger that fighting with two weapons presents.