Hi

As the 5ed. is not really about melee combat, I am ashamed to ask these questions:

How can a character use two weapons at the same time (e.g. sword and dagger) in the rules point of view?

How the combat totals should be calculated?

Should there be seperate skill for two weapon fighting, as there currently is two-handed and single weapon (+ optional shield) skills?

Or did I miss something?

--
myrpg, the mighty something
played 3rd, skipped 4th, now reading 5th

guess a combined "sword and dagger" as a single set of stats and add a "two-weapons skill"

BUT - it's not in period for Europe in 1220, which is for heavy weapons, shileds and armour, not lightness, quickness and grace.
Many ME swords are rather closer to a crowbar than to a fencing sword...

"Florentine" style duelling with light sword and a dagger is later.

The Vikings were said to fight with a number of odd combinations, like 2 axes or two spears - but I don't know whether that's just legend, or whteher it matters enough to add into the system...

Don't be ashamed to ask questions. :-) And you can make it about melee combat if you want to - it's your game, play the way you like. I enjoy a good slugfest now and then myself.

There are no rules in ArM5 (that is, 5th Edition Ars Magica) for using two weapons at the same time. I cannot say for sure but I think those rules were intentionally left out to keep the combat section brief and simple. ArM4 did have rules for two-weapon fighting and if you would like to read them in detail, you may download the ArM4 rule book as a free PDF.

As has been pointed out, two-weapon fighting was not common in historical Europe in the 13th century - another reason the rules may have been left out.

However if you want to fight with two weapons anyway I would suggest the following:

1) Create a new "Two Weapons" skill that covers all use of two weapons
2) Create your own weapon stats for each pair. There are a number of factors to consider:
* Take note of the difference in stats between Standard and Expensive weapons. The differences are pretty small - one or two points in each category. Adding a second weapon should probably not make as much difference as moving to the next price category
* Do not simply add together the statistics of both weapons in the pair, as that would make the combination enormously powerful compared to other weapons
* As noted, the prevailing doctrine in historical Europe of the 13th century was heavy armor, heavy weapons, and shields. Test your house rules to see that two-weapon fighting is not superior to the "standard" fighting style. If it were, then knights would drop their heater shields and pick up a main gauche. I think the rules should be designed so that methods historical people seemed to prefer, work the best.

I have not got as far as making actual rules for two-weapon fighting - my group does not need those rules at the moment - but as you can see I have given the matter some thought.

Good luck, and I'd be interested to know what you end up trying.

Slightly off-topic...

I'm erally enjoying the new fifth edition combat rules. Group rules? Very fast to use. Defending? Really shows the benefit of grogs.

And of course, the new wound schema is much better and much more realistic in my opinion (and I was a huge fan of the old body level system).

I do miss movement rules but these can be added through house rules (last session the question of how far a character can move in a round came up). The exclusion of crossbows was a dreadful oversight. They should have been there. Still, there's always the recourse to more house rules.

Okay, that's it. Big thumbs up for new combat rules.

Thanks, for your good advice!

What comes from the ArM4 is better left unspoken. At least the combat section ;)

I understand that the medieval feel is the focus of the book, but why leave crossbows out! Because, those were not used in the Europe? Ok, if true but, crossbows were used by the troops of Saladin in the Near East (e.g. Levant tribunal region and Jerusalem).

So light swords and dagger -tactics were not used in the 13th century? I know that this tactic was used against plated/full armors. As it was effective to pierce the dagger/dirk/stiletto through the joints of plates where if any light and flexible armor was. Was this tactic intentionally left out, because there is no stats for those armours?
Or would it have turned out to be too complicated?

Sticking to Medium Research Sagas I will ;)

The offhand weapon could be used for several actions: (second) attack, block by hilt or blade or armguard, bypassing armour (thrust), cutting e.g. rope, poking someones eye with dagger while holding the sword on victims throat, and the list goes on and is only limited by the creativity of a player.

The common factor is that these all seem to be special actions, when compared to normal combat actions in rules point of view. How to quantify these is truly problematic. Only by defining a new skill (two-weapon fighting) and weapons stat combinations (modified ones) resolves the basic action types (attack and parry). But how about the other? Scary at least...

Perhaps the new skill is not needed and neither the stats. The second weapon is only considered to be held in the hand, and it is never summed up with the primary weapon into Attack Total. Therefore Single weapon or Brawl skill is used, depending the type of primary weapon, while holding the second weapon. Perhaps it would be good to rule that the secondary weapon must be one of those used with Brawl ability (medium - light weapon pairing).

Simple and acceptable.

The second weapon is used only for special effects (actions), similarly when using no secondary weapon and doing e.g. disarm maneuver or trip Attack Advantages. So when attacking with two weapons (e.g. special sword and dagger attack declared) a certain Attack Advantage is required (perhaps 6) to deliver the hit, otherwise it misses. For Damage Total both Weapon Damage Modifiers are summed. For hitting through a crack/joint in the armpit of an armour, a different Attack Advantage is required (perhaps 9). If the attack connects, then the Armor Soak Bonus is ignored and the Damage is calculated by using the secondary Weapon Damage Modifier.

Simple, and can easily be adjucated by a Storyteller based on combat situations. E.g. On muddy ground the required Attack Advantage is only 7 to hit the unprotected armpit of a knight who is using Great Sword and wearing heavy armour by an nimble unarmored wanna bee backstabber... Althougt the unarmored might not get a second chance...

Just thoughts...

The viking style of using an axe as a second weapon was used to open a guard by either hooking the shield edge, or burring the axe deep into a wooden shield.

As a reasonable game mechanic, add the secondary weapons attack modifier to the characters total attack adjustment, but ignore the other stats.

adding the atttack bonus of a 2nd weapon (and no other factor) is likely to greatly favour certain weapons, including ones which are really too long to be usable - like 2 long-swords!

Compare the 5e Defense bonus from shields: they are not overwhelming advantages but most ME warriors will want to use a shield;

it's a good rule of thumb to assume that the possible weapon combinations (and weapon+sheild, and 2-weapon) were "field tested" in a thoroughly Darwinian fashion (lose a battle and die) by ME warriors, and that the historically recorded combinations were plausible balances of cost, weight (strenght required and load), vs effectiveness.

What you need to try to avoid is a new combination, not recorded historically, but which in game terms comes out more favourable that the historical combinations. If you do that, it;s asure sign that the numbers are wrong...

"BUT - it's not in period for Europe in 1220, which is for heavy weapons, shileds and armour, not lightness, quickness and grace.
Many ME swords are rather closer to a crowbar than to a fencing sword..."

Err.. nope.

The typical 13th century arming sword is about 2-3 pounds in weight and balanced to be good and fast - a cutting weapon rather than a thrusting one. Armour is still in the mail era, before additional plate defences, and is relatively light and unencumbering, especially now that chausses are taking over from long hauberks. Still enough to stop a sword, of course, which is why one would tend to use one's lance on another knight instead - or grapple and rase his helm off to force him to yield to the threat of your dagger at his throat.

The more specialised thrusting sword has yet to come, as it evolved along with the plate defences; I understand that the longsword (aka "bastard" sword)is also not very common yet, though one might use a buckler with the arming sword in non-military contexts.

I'd hate to use a crowbar that in any way resembles a mediaeval sword. It would be almost entirely useless.

Victorian speculation and Hollywood fantasies have been pretty much replaced by study of artifacts and primary sources, these days. Happy to elucidate further, if you like.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

"The viking style of using an axe as a second weapon was used to open a guard by either hooking the shield edge, or burring the axe deep into a wooden shield."

I see this also as to be a special effect (action), and calls for an Attack Advantage (perhaps 3?) of the secondary weapon. If the declared attack successes the shield is momentarily forced to the side and the primary weapon deals the damage normally. For calulating the damage the Attack Advantage gets rised by the shield's defence modifier (as if it hadn't had any effect) before Soak is taken into account...

Just a thought...

"It has already been stated "officially" that crossbows were left out because they changed the combat mechanics late in the playtest process and didn't have time to work out the rules properly. It has also been stated that they will be included in some future product, possibly one that introduces an optional more detailed combat system."

Would have changed combat mechanics?

Another product introduces an optional more detailed combat system?

Oh, dear... I see where this is going.

> "I see this also as to be a special effect (action), and calls for an Attack Advantage (perhaps 3?) of the secondary weapon. If the declared attack successes the shield is momentarily forced to the side and the primary weapon deals the damage normally. For calulating the damage the Attack Advantage gets rised by the shield's defence modifier (as if it hadn't had any effect) before Soak is taken into account..."

5th ed tries to eliminate all special manovers as part of combat - making them instead part of the original roll to hit... Thus finding a simple way of dealing with this seems better.

Suggestion:
Axe: adds 3 to attack
Dagger: adds 1 to attack
Short sword(/long knife): adds 1 to both attack and defence

All variants adds 1 botch die to all combat rolls.

That's a neat, simple solution ... but:

can I ask if you have compared these bonuses to the bonuses for Shields in 5th Ed?

+1 to attack seems plausible, but +3 to attack is up there with expensive Knight's Kite Shields. (And shields require extra strength and add to load)

The trouble with bonuses like this is you end up wondering why the rest of ME warriors weren't following your example and using 2 weapons...

I believe there was a substantial balancing exercise taken for 5e weapons. (If you take a spreadsheet and enter the numbers for weapons, and compute one of a number of possible "merit" values, you find that the weapons cluster fairly closely, and divide into one- and two-handed and into inexpensive < standard < expensive.
My own favourite "merit" formula is (0.5*Init + 2*(Atk+Def) + Dam)
[actually that was particularly true in 4e where carry-over made Atk & Def most important - I haven't got a new formula for 5e])

Keeping it simple, is the proper way, I say. I did forgot those botch dices as a balancing factor. :)

How this translates to "thrusting the knife into somebodys armpit" -issue where is less armour?

In other games these special maneuvers might be called Called Shots, meaning that there is a certain target area where to hit to gain a certain benefit from hitting it. E.g. targeting armpit, eye, hand, leg, or even the shield to force it aside. In other games, it is commonly made more difficult to hit, while the result is more effective than normally.

Adding botch dices to these actions, does not make it more difficult, only more lethal to the attacker (if unlucky). My point is that if you only add bonuses to Attack Total and Defence Total, with botch dices, doing these stunts is actually easier than normal combat.

I do understand that sword & axe tactic is effective against sword & shield, but is it equally effective against sword & dagger? This thinking points into a weapon pairing vs. weapon pairing in combat situations, making it in the end more difficult than was intended. Hmmm... my opponent is using sword & dagger... so, I will be using today... (looking through pile of tables) 3ft pole because...

Is this want we want? Might be fast and very interesting, but equally complicated as those need to be calculated beforehand into the Totals, than selecting simple tactical maneuvers. Player's do like to make decisions, which are not so abstract.

I see the required Attack Advantage approach better, as it is harder for the attacker to hit, and results in more effective outcome. However, two-weapon fighting does call for an extra botch dice to balance it further.

Suggestion:

Assigning a required Attack Advantage (3, 6, 9 or 12) to hit (otherwise it misses), extra botch dice (1, 2 or 3), and no further adjustments to the Attack or Defence Totals keeps it simple enough. Storyteller decides by using common sense. He/she can then adjucate the outcome based on situation (perhaps no soak, secondary weapon's damage modifier taken into account, secondary weapon's some other feature taken into account, or some other "cool" effect based on player described maneuver). The only way to boost up the Attack Total would be through the Fatigue loss.

Rethinking abit:

In most cases a secondary weapon is a backup, a dagger would be nearly useless unless you start grapeling. However, if we want to allow some player initiative, how about this:

Secondary weapon gives no bonus unless you fatigue yourself. If you do, then you gain the secondary weapons bonus in addition to the normal bonus for fatiguing yourself in combat.

Additional optional rule:
This also increases the number of botch die by one, but in case of a botch, your combat total is calculated as if a simple 0 was rolled. However this results in your main weapon being lost... (stuck in a shield, thrown or whatever).

Suggestion examples for clarifying what I mean:

Charging
In short range (running 6 to 12 paces in a straight line) the required Attack Advantage is 6. Running more than 12 paces it is 9 (opponent has time to prepare for the charge). Storyteller decides the exact outcome. One extra botch dice.

1) Damage Total gets +5 to damage, after Soak taken into account for Two hand weapons.
2) Damage Total gets +3 to damage, after Soak taken into account for Single weapons.
3) Damage Total gets +1 to damage, after Soak taken into account for Brawl weapons.

Bull Rush
In short range (running 6 to 12 paces in a straight line) the required Attack Advantage is 9. Running more than 12 paces it is 12 (opponent has time to prepare for the charge). Storyteller decides the exact outcome. Two extra botch dice.

1) Opponent might lose Fatique, because of impact.

Two-weapon fighting
Secondary weapon causes required Attack Advantage of 6 if secodary weapon is Brawl weapon (2 extra botch dice), and 9 if Single weapon (1 extra botch dice).

1) Secondary weapon's Damage Modifier is taken into account when calculating Damage. If zero, then gives +1

Shield Bash
Shield attack causes required Attack Advantage of 6, and 1 extra botch dice.

1) Add positive Strength again to Damage Total.

Multiple arrows
Firing two arrows per round requires Attack Advantage of 6 (2 extra botch dice). Firing three arrows per round requires Attack Advantage of 12 (3 extra botch dice).

1) Arrows are resolved seperately per target. Based on only one Attack Total.

Writing these without the Book. Judging on the fly... (at work)

I did post my examples before reading the message 642.17 (quoted below)

"Secondary weapon gives no bonus unless you fatigue yourself. If you do, then you gain the secondary weapons bonus in addition to the normal bonus for fatiguing yourself in combat.

Additional optional rule:
This also increases the number of botch die by one, but in case of a botch, your combat total is calculated as if a simple 0 was rolled. However this results in your main weapon being lost... (stuck in a shield, thrown or whatever)."

It is still easier than normal combat. Fatiguing yes, and with bad luck even more lethal.

I still see using the Fatigue as a tool for a player to lower the required Attack Advantage of the special effects. It is the player's choice to try either head strong (using Fatigue) or try with less effort.

Perhaps, if the required Attack Advantages (for two-weapon fighting) are set to 3 and 6, then more Fatigue would be used...

I dunno. I wish, they had thought this through in the Book, or set some guide lines to the Special Effects mentioned in the Book.

This is starting to sound like 4th ed, and we don't want to go back there, do we?

Point is, most of these things are choises made in the heat of battle and has more to do with the skill of the character (as given by his ability) than the skill of the player. Shield bash? Sure, it's something one does to get ones opponent off balance and at a good striking distance.

As for multiple arrows? That sounds more like a major virtue than a common combat manouver...

This is perhaps the best way to handle 2-weapon fighting too. Add it as a minor virtue. Then we can simply add the second weapon, and not worry too much about it... After all, most who carried two weapons in a battle, only used one at a time...

The problem with Virtues is that those must be selected at the time of character creation, cannot be learned at later time, and cannot get better at.

All I can say about the 4th edition combat is that it was very broken. I know the 3rd edition combat to be playable (by just playing it), although it was little complicated at times. Still that was/is nothing compared to d20's complexity of combat, with AoOs and all.

I am starting to see the 5ed. combat insufficient to my needs. It does not focus on the character and to his/her choices, but to roll playing it quickly. The basics are indeed fine, but I would like to see some finegraining in it. The bones need some meat...

My suggestion of using the required Attack Advantage as a major factor in these Special Effects is also most probably wrong. If you look out the mounted combat option, it affects Attack and Defence Totals. If you have an advantage for a higher position, then why not for attacking from behind or side? There are no suggestions for combat environments (e.g. heat, darkness, obstacles, wind). No suggestions for the effects of the Trip Special Effect (presented in the Book).

These advantages/disadvantages cannot be simply covered by the skill of character. How ironic this is, that every edition of Ars Magica has had it's combat revised. And this time, it was not made right either. From too complex/broken action packed combat simulation into a simple roll playing... Combat should also support role playing, I say. Perhaps, it is finally fixed in the 6th edition ;) at 2015.

"In most cases a secondary weapon is a backup, a dagger would be nearly useless unless you start grapeling."

I used to think this until I started studying the martial arts. IMO, a secondary weapon is an essential part of a fighting style. A small buckler, for example, looks almost useless as a shield, but when used with a sword it opens up the possibilities enormously: you can protect your sword arm with it, so you can attack more easily; you can pin or deflect your opponent's weapon or arm; you can use it or leverage, and so forth. I haven't looked at sword-and-dagger, but I understand that many schools used the combination - rapier and main gauche, for example - and so I would imagine that it can be very effective.

The key, of course, lies in knowing how to use the combination of weapons. The combination becomes effectively a weapon in its own right, requiring a skill to use and having its own set of die roll modifiers.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

I think all this comes down to a single question: "How complex/advanced do you want to make combat?"

Is combat the main aspect of your game? Is the most important characters gladiators of some kind?

To me using two weapons is (for game purposes) more something I would use to show a characters personality (reckless/aggressive), than to gain an stat-vise advantage. Two-weapon useage is supposed to be rare at this point in history, and this is why I suggested having a virtue for it.

Using an special ability for 2-weapon fighting indicates that it requires more specific training than any other form of combat (eg. shield&sword is the same ability as a open hand & spear), and this seems strange to me... After all, anything you hold in your second hand will be used activly, a shield isn't armour after all, it is a mobile defence...

"Using an special ability for 2-weapon fighting indicates that it requires more specific training than any other form of combat (eg. shield&sword is the same ability as a open hand & spear), and this seems strange to me... After all, anything you hold in your second hand will be used activly, a shield isn't armour after all, it is a mobile defence..."

Not to put too fine a point on it but it does take a lot of traininng to use rapier and maingauche...flourentine is significantly harder than sword and shield.

Yes you move a shield to block blows but you only move it a few inches and it is a relatively straight forward action. It is very hard to learn to do much with your left hand, in general it is weaker than the right, and so to actually parry with that hand while keeping your weapon in play is something that takes a great deal of special training.

One of the major differences between someone who is trained in martial arts and one not is that the trained person lauches combination attacks using hands, elbows and feet in a smooth sequence which will totaly overwhelm someone who isn't trained. But that training takes hours per day and probably over a year to aquire judging from how long it took for people to learn it.

At this time in history (the middle ages) the value of that second weapon was marginal, using a twohanded weapon or a weapon and shield would do more to ensure your survival in a fight then having a relatively useless secondary weapon. There are a variety of reasons for this, but sacrificing a shield for a knife doesn't make any sense since things you can parry with a shield (arrows, spears and the like) you can't parry with a knife. Heavy weapons such as a pole arm would ignore a knife as well. Even most other weapons would tend to just ignore it, blocking a sword you might be able to do...but only if the hilt was designed for it...as during a proper parry the other blade slides down the blade into the hand guard. But due to the shortness of the blade I am dubious about its effectiveness against an axe.

Basically rapier and maingauche works quite well when you are fighting in a court duel or a back alley and far less well when you are facing an armoured foe on horseback or on the ground.

To the best of my knowledge the only people who did flourentine longswords outside of hollywood are the SCA and the historical basis for that is slim. The japanese who didn't have shields developed a style of combat with two swords but we are talking about europe not japan.

As for special attacks, frankly it is far easier to do a "special attack" with a regular sword then with a knife in your off hand. Such special attacks are in fact not special and are accounted for in the fact your attack and defence are affected by your skill. A skilled opponent can make a stop cut, an unskilled one cannot. Finding a chink in armor or whatever is in the game mechanic already...when you roll a 1 you can be considered to have done so.

Having a knife in your off hand is no where near the protection of having a shield, it does not substantially add to your offense unless the person you are facing has no shield and is using a one handed weapon and even so bringing it into play is not straightforward. This is the reason that it was not adopted in the middle ages and waited until basically people were fighting duels not combats and were using rapiers and not broadswords to become popular.

As for concrete recomendations have a small weapon in the off hand add +1 to the other weapons defence against non-projectile weapons and forget about it otherwise. Make a skill "Flourentine Fighting" and leave it so.

Viking Bezerks with two axes...*shrug* I would imagine they less hooked the shield which is not easy to do but rather smashed one axe into and used that to swing the other around into the person but someone in the SCA would likely have a better idea on the exact body dynamics involved but I hardly see why they would bother trying to hook the shield since it is far from clear they could move it significantly but without trying this personally I am only guessing. Someone in the SCA could try it out.

*shrug* It more depends on if you want a combat system that allows you to simulate combat in the middle ages or if you want to simulate combat in Hollywoods version of the middle ages.

"Viking Bezerks with two axes...*shrug* I would imagine they less hooked the shield which is not easy to do but rather smashed one axe into and used that to swing the other around into the person but someone in the SCA would likely have a better idea on the exact body dynamics involved but I hardly see why they would bother trying to hook the shield since it is far from clear they could move it significantly but without trying this personally I am only guessing. Someone in the SCA could try it out."

I've done some re-enactment fighting (european style, with blunt steel) - and a pretty common line-fighting tactic is too use an axe to hook an opponents shield so that your ally can pierce his guard. With an axe as a second weapon, you can be your own ally...
An alternate tactic is slaming your axe as hard as you can into your opponents shield. If you're lucky it gets stuck and his shield will be far too heavy to use effectivly (the last tactic I've never seen used, as it's is nearly imposible to do with a blunt weapon, not to mention too dangerous)

"Yes you move a shield to block blows but you only move it a few inches and it is a relatively straight forward action. It is very hard to learn to do much with your left hand, in general it is weaker than the right, and so to actually parry with that hand while keeping your weapon in play is something that takes a great deal of special training."

Based on this, bucklers should have their own skill as well. Bucklers are too small to offer any signifigant passive defense, being basicly a slightly overgrown hand. And a shield held passivly isn't nearly as much use as an active shield.
Basicly all this means is that all weapon combinations require skill. However, this is allready considered - you add your skill to your combat total!

Good discussion here I must say. :)

"Finding a chink in armor or whatever is in the game mechanic already...when you roll a 1 you can be considered to have done so."

This is the problem. Your skill or decisive actions does not matter a newt in it, as two equally skilled (heavily armored) would fight forever, if the rule of one wouldn't exist. The winner is whom gets the 1 (and gets to roll again) wins. Players just roll and wait (hack and slash). There is no grand story in there (at least when thinking player participation).

So, the rules (or die) dictate the actions taken by a character, not by a player. I instead see, getting the 1, as a possibility to succeed extremely well on what character is trying to do, based on player's decisions.

However, we all have our own preferences.

Should the 5th ed. combat then be understood in that Storyguide (optionally players can throw theirs) makes all the rolls, and when the outcome is clear, he/she will translate the numerical outcomes into a grande story for players to hear?

If this is the case, then why not to say it clearly in the Book? Almost every other rpg in there focuses on player activity (a.k.a simulation and decision making) through the combat, and I have tried to understood the combat rules that in mind.

5th Ed combat focusses on enabling magi to cast Magic... most of the rules changes (esp. Groups and the simplifications and cutting of options) are to leave more player time for the players to focus on their magi, and slots in the game times where magic fits naturally and effectively.

Ars Magica is not a particularly good game for plain combat;
5th Ed is somewhat worse for plain no-magic combat than previous editions of ArM, but 5th Ed is *better* at being what it is supposed to be - the game of the Arts of Magic!

>I think all this comes down to a single question: "How complex/advanced do you want to make combat?"

Absolutely. I think starting to add modifiers for the size of weapon in the off hand is getting a bit more complex than a magic-based game needs. I'm interested in the stuff, and the errors which have been brought in for obvious game mechanics reasons* irritate me to a certain extent, but that's not a reason to bring it into an AM saga any more than it is to bring it into my job.

In my experience 90% or more of combat takes place with the combatant using the same weapon or weapons. The simplest approach is simply to decide for that person's favoured style of combat just what the appropriate atk/def/dam scores should be, based off the examples in the book, and then track the player's improving skill.

The main question is granularity of the skills: is it your "sword and buckler" skill that increases, or "weapon plus shield", or "melee weapons", or "combat", or what? I'd be tempted just to go fairly broad-brush - the weapon skill modifier isn't huge compared to the fixed effect of weapon, strength, etc anyway (which may be another bugbear...).

I wouldn't make a particular combat skill a virtue, though. "Few are the men who have the gift of holding a dagger in his left hand, and none has yet learnt this gift though he practise never so hard"... no, doesn't smell right to me.

I might ask the player how he got the chance to learn a skill not practised by anyone else on the same continent, though.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

* For example (apologies for any libel): "We want armours with factors of 1,2,3,4 and 5. So that's leather, err... thick leather, scales, and mail in that order. Damn , we need something in at 3. Hmmm...leather scales? Leather is 2, scales 4, so that sounds about right. I wonder if that bears any relationship to armours used at the time or to actual effectiveness? Never mind. Oh, if weight is made proportional to defence as well we get quite an elegant game balance. Neat."

"In my experience 90% or more of combat takes place with the combatant using the same weapon or weapons. The simplest approach is simply to decide for that person's favoured style of combat just what the appropriate atk/def/dam scores should be, based off the examples in the book, and then track the player's improving skill.

The main question is granularity of the skills: is it your "sword and buckler" skill that increases, or "weapon plus shield", or "melee weapons", or "combat", or what? I'd be tempted just to go fairly broad-brush - the weapon skill modifier isn't huge compared to the fixed effect of weapon, strength, etc anyway (which may be another bugbear...)."

A total of 4 weapon skills sounds just right in my mind. Single weapon(with optional shield), great weapon, ranged weapon and brawl. A fifth group might apply for siege weapons. And when you say "the weapon skill modifier isn't huge compared to the fixed effect of weapon, strength, etc anyway", take into account the rules for group combat, where a trained group adds the skill a second time, and if I remember correctly, it is your skill that is added again when you exert yourself...

"I wouldn't make a particular combat skill a virtue, though. "Few are the men who have the gift of holding a dagger in his left hand, and none has yet learnt this gift though he practise never so hard"... no, doesn't smell right to me."

Hmm - good point. But then again, I dislike the thought of having a seperate two-weapon skill. It isn't THAT different from fighting with a single weapon or a single weapon & shield. So how about having it as a trainable virtue? Same principle as the supernatural virtues. Gain 5 xp and you gain the virtue.