Amazing TWF variant... again... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Amazing TWF variant... again... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Luega
08-22-05, 12:13 PM So, I was cruising the information highway yesterday, and I found this (which is kinda wierd since I was looking for information about King Arthur and his knights. It seems I get easily distracted). However, this is a very radical step away from the conventional method of handling two-weapon fighting, namely that it doesn't grants extra attacks, but enhances the attack made with the primary weapon.

I'm not sure what to think of this. But I'm presenting it here for you to see. Any thoughts? Cause I don't have any, at least not yet. But it's certainly an... interesting idea.

Two weapon fighting is broken. It's great for rogues, but less effective than non-two-weapon fighting for all other classes, even with feats. This change allows two weapon fighters to nearly do as much damage as a single two handed weapon wielder, with a slight gain in versatility.

Firstly, delete all two weapon fighting feats (two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, two weapon defense, etc).

Two weapon attack [general]
You know how to use two weapons to maximum effect.
Prerequisites: None
Benefit: When wielding two weapons, you gain +2 damage on your primary weapon. No additional attacks are granted. The type, enhancement or size of the offhand weapon is irrelevant. No extra damage or special effect (such as sneak attack or flaming) applies to the offhand weapon. You may freely choose which weapon is the primary for any given attack, but interative penalties still apply. Power attack when using two weapons adds twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls (and can be used even with light weapons), just as if using a two handed weapon and damage from strength is multiplied x1.5.
Normal: Using two weapons grants no benefit.
Special: This feat is free for barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins and rogues.

Two weapon parry [general]
You can simultaneously strike and defend with two weapons.
Prerequisites: Two Weapon Attack, BAB +3
Benefit: Gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC when using two weapons. The +2 damage from Two Weapon Attack still applies.
Special: This may be selected as a fighter bonus feat.

Greater two weapon parry [general]
Your defensive ability improves.
Prerequisites: Two Weapon Attack, Two Weapon Parry, BAB +9
Benefit: Gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC which stacks with Two Weapon Parry, for a total of +4 dodge to AC.
Special: This may be selected as a fighter bonus feat.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster
08-22-05, 01:02 PM Looks pretty nice. It resembles my my own TWF variant, which applies an attack penalty, but adds the damage of the offhand weapon.
Luega
08-22-05, 01:17 PM Would it be possible to see that?

I belive that the two-weapon fighting style is superior to all others. If one sword is 1d8, then two swords is 2d8. It's twice the power. Simple math, really. Plus, it looks cool.

Of course, with Complete Adventurer/Warrior, two-weapon fighting has become a viable fighting style thanks to the many new feats, and the Tempest PrC.

But as I said, the variant I posted above is really different. With some work it could actually be usable. It's such a different take on the whole TWF deal that it's refreshing.
tarkin
08-22-05, 01:56 PM The guy wrote a reasonable, but worthless concept.

His major mistake is shown from calling the original idea 'broken'.

TWF as written is great for Rangers, Rogues, and other bonus damage fighters (you do more damage using TWF and buying two +1 flaming, shocking weapons then you can get from spending the equivelent amount of cash on a Two handed weapon).

So why does he, like so many other people INSIST on it being good for everyone else?

Now look at what he gets for using his system.

Instead of granting rogues, rangers and other smart people with enough money for two +3 weapons a nice combat system, he grants yet ANOTHER feat that does +2 damage.

Besides the numerous illogical things (increase damage? why? And what is with allowing them to get the x1.5 strength WHY? cause they need it using his rule or his system is worthless?) why would you not just take Weapon Specialization?

Cause you aren't a fighter and want it?

No. His idea is worthless. It takes a rich, fully developed TWF system that has lots of value, rips it out and puts in something with ZERO value.

I am perfectly willing to re-engineer TWF, but you have to come up with a helpfull and usefull idea, not simply remove the things you don't like and put in an illogical, worthless copy of Weapon Specialization for Two handed Weapons.
Keenath
08-22-05, 02:23 PM I sort of agree with Tarkin -- the variant rule here is okay, I guess, but pointless and flavorless.

TWF is supposed to be useful to only some characters, and useless to others. The same is true of Power Attack and Combat Reflexes and Weapon Finesse.

I've posted this a couple times before, but never heard any negative comments about it...

The real problem with TWF is the fact that the improved and greater TWF feats do not give benefits appropriate to their incredible prerequisites. Improved TWF gives you an advantage that is weaker than normal TWF -- an attack at -5, as opposed to an attack at your full BAB (with appropriate penalties) -- while Greater TWF has literally superhuman prereqs, and provides an attack that, in all likelihood, only hits on a natural 20.

My suggested variant, then, is this:

TWF is left exactly as it is now.

Improved TWF has the same prereqs, but changes to this:
Benefit: Instead of the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you may make an off-hand attack for each primary-hand attack you are entitled to, based on your BAB, with appropriate penalties for each attack.
In addition, when you are wielding two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes) and make no attack with the offhand weapon, you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC. When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.

Greater TWF keeps the same prereqs, and changes to this:
Benefit: [copy the text of "Dual Strike", from Complete Adventurer, here]
In addition, you gain the shield bonus to your AC granted by Improved Two-Weapon Fighting any time you are weilding two weapons, even when you make attacks with the off-hand weapon.

Now, those are feats worth spending three slots on.
Luega
08-22-05, 03:21 PM Heh, some harsh words there. Though, they're well justified I guess. While I agree that the way he did it might not be optimal, he does have some good ideas. If not for anything than a new feat.

But, as I said earlier, the two-weapon style has really improved with the release of the Complete books. Feats like Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and Dual Strike are making sure that dual wielding are an acceptable combat option. And the Weapon Style feats in Complete Warrior (primarily those that build from two-weapon fighting. Can't remember if all of them did, or just most of them) are really cool. Plus, more attacks generally translates to more options in combat with regards to disarming, tripping, and the like.

My personal opinion is that the two-weapon fighting system is good enough. It took a while, but I feel that we've finally gotten to where dual wielding is on par with the other fighting styles. If not better.
Thorak
08-22-05, 04:23 PM Fighting with two weapons is not inherently superior. To paraphrase a favourite game, just because you wield two swords with a power of 100, that does not make your power 200. Fighting with two weapons is a difficult style to master for very little actual benefit, in the real world. There's a reason why, in Japanese history, the only swordsman of note who made his name for fighting with two swords was Musashi. And while he said it was a good style, he also said it was insanely difficult to master.

I really, really don't understand why people think it should inherently be better. Not every option in the game should be just as good as any other. I have the exact same justification, for instance, for claiming that I want to be able to use my pencil as a greatsword, dealing 2d6 slashing damage for stabbing people with it.

Should it work that way? Obviously not. Because a pencil is inferior. As is TWF, in most cases. It is too difficult to learn for the benefits it provides. As history shows. The few styles which had a lot of dual-weapon combat, like Rennaisance fencing with rapier and main gauche, used the second weapon almost entirely for defensive parries. There were a few attacks with it, but those weren't why you had the second weapon, you had it because it was something you could use for defense that was better than your hand.
Keenath
08-22-05, 04:35 PM You have a point, Thorak, but there's a definite game-balance issue.

One feat, no, it definitely should not make your style better. You're spending that effort just to learn the two-weapon style. No problem. It's only advantageous to certain characters, and everyone else should keep away from it.

But once you start getting into Improved and Greater and so on, you have to be giving something back. You're now spending feats to improve mastery of the style, and there should be benefits at LEAST as good as Power Attack, Cleave, or Weapon Specialization. Better, in fact, because the TWF tree requires an insanely high Dex score!

I don't want to trot out a tired old argument, but really -- this IS a fantasy game. The players ARE on the level of Musashi. That's why they're heroes. Nobody ever questions that Porthos, Athos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan can fight with two swords and hold off four guys apiece. If one of the Count's men tried that, he'd get skewered! That's what the Musketeers do. Otherwise the book would be called "The Guards of Cardinal Richelieu".
Thorak
08-22-05, 06:08 PM You have a point, Thorak, but there's a definite game-balance issue.

One feat, no, it definitely should not make your style better. You're spending that effort just to learn the two-weapon style. No problem. It's only advantageous to certain characters, and everyone else should keep away from it.

But once you start getting into Improved and Greater and so on, you have to be giving something back. You're now spending feats to improve mastery of the style, and there should be benefits at LEAST as good as Power Attack, Cleave, or Weapon Specialization. Better, in fact, because the TWF tree requires an insanely high Dex score!

I don't want to trot out a tired old argument, but really -- this IS a fantasy game. The players ARE on the level of Musashi. That's why they're heroes. Nobody ever questions that Porthos, Athos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan can fight with two swords and hold off four guys apiece. If one of the Count's men tried that, he'd get skewered! That's what the Musketeers do. Otherwise the book would be called "The Guards of Cardinal Richelieu".
From what I recall of bad Musketeers movies, they only usually do that when they take someone else's sword, and only briefly. Their being great swordsmen had nothing to do with their wielding two weapons, it was something they could do, but not what made them great.

Same with Musashi. Sure, he could fight with two katana. But he's just as well known for winning a duel with a single bokken (wooden sword) he carved out of an oar. He was great with a sword. that he could wield two was almost secondary.

And that's what I'm saying here. IMHO, these guys are almost better represented by taking a single TWF feat, and then adding extras on, like two-weapon defense and such.

Now, I wholeheartedly agree that TWD needs a boost. Or perhaps should even be rolled into TWF wholesale. But I don't see that the offensive side of TWF needs to be improved.
Luega
08-23-05, 07:01 AM Fighting with two weapons is not inherently superior. To paraphrase a favourite game, just because you wield two swords with a power of 100, that does not make your power 200.Tales of Symphonia if I'm not mistaken. A great game indeed.

Fighting with two weapons is a difficult style to master for very little actual benefit, in the real world. There's a reason why, in Japanese history, the only swordsman of note who made his name for fighting with two swords was Musashi. And while he said it was a good style, he also said it was insanely difficult to master.You're right that two-weapon fighting is a difficult style to master. That's represented by the number of feats you have to take.

I really, really don't understand why people think it should inherently be better. Not every option in the game should be just as good as any other. I have the exact same justification, for instance, for claiming that I want to be able to use my pencil as a greatsword, dealing 2d6 slashing damage for stabbing people with it. Heh, I don't think that TWF is mechanically superior, nor do I think that it should be. It's different. The reason that I prefer dual wielding over the other styles is that it looks so much cooler, and there's not too many others out there who does it, so it makes me stand out. Besides, it is the most cinematic of fighting styles.

I don't think that TWF needs a boost any more. As I said before, more than once may I add, the Complete books have made TWF great. It takes a great deal of feats to learn, and an even greater number of feats to master. Which I think is fine. It is the most difficult style. It's fair.

And as for the real life comparison, TWF trumps two-handed fighting and single-weapon fighting. The only style that really beats TWF into a pulp is sword (or any other weapon for that matter) and shield. TWF is also weak against TWF itself.
TyraaloftheFist
08-23-05, 03:04 PM 'Some web site' (or whoever wrote the idea) had an interesting idea. I wouldn't call it worthless, but I wouldn't say it's great...one of the things that I always liked about TWF was that it pretty much symbolized the frenzied offense approach in some people, or a liking of extra versatility in others. Why it symbolized a frenzied offense to me is simple...it's actually easier, in my opinion, to just keep attacking when using two weapons, although this is based on my experiments with a katana and its scabbard. Not the best tools of investigation here, admittedly, but the result was the same with a pair of kamas and a katana/wakizashi combination. I don't know whether that just says that I'm the type to keep hacking away until something falls off, but that's why I say that.

Anyway...I like Keenath's ideas for variant TWF rules better, probably because they make it feasible to try to attack somebody with all the attacks and not worry so much about missing horribly. I wouldn't know if the things in Complete Adventurer make TWFing better than it is in the core RAW, of course, as I lack the book. Complete Warrior does have a lot of TWFing Weapon Style feats, including one that gives you the ability to TWF with a halberd.

Off-topic: Musashi was also known for using bokken in normal, to-the-death battles, if I remember rightly, along with pretty much creating the two-sword style...again, I speak thinking of things I can only vaguely remember, so if I'm wrong, I'm sorry. Of course, he definitely did the whole thing with the bokken made from an oar.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Luega 08-22-05, 12:13 PM	So, I was cruising the information highway yesterday, and I found this (which is kinda wierd since I was looking for information about King Arthur and his knights. It seems I get easily distracted). However, this is a very radical step away from the conventional method of handling two-weapon fighting, namely that it doesn't grants extra attacks, but enhances the attack made with the primary weapon. I'm not sure what to think of this. But I'm presenting it here for you to see. Any thoughts? Cause I don't have any, at least not yet. But it's certainly an... interesting idea. Two weapon fighting is broken. It's great for rogues, but less effective than non-two-weapon fighting for all other classes, even with feats. This change allows two weapon fighters to nearly do as much damage as a single two handed weapon wielder, with a slight gain in versatility. Firstly, delete all two weapon fighting feats (two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, two weapon defense, etc). Two weapon attack [general] You know how to use two weapons to maximum effect. Prerequisites: None Benefit: When wielding two weapons, you gain +2 damage on your primary weapon. No additional attacks are granted. The type, enhancement or size of the offhand weapon is irrelevant. No extra damage or special effect (such as sneak attack or flaming) applies to the offhand weapon. You may freely choose which weapon is the primary for any given attack, but interative penalties still apply. Power attack when using two weapons adds twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls (and can be used even with light weapons), just as if using a two handed weapon and damage from strength is multiplied x1.5. Normal: Using two weapons grants no benefit. Special: This feat is free for barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins and rogues. Two weapon parry [general] You can simultaneously strike and defend with two weapons. Prerequisites: Two Weapon Attack, BAB +3 Benefit: Gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC when using two weapons. The +2 damage from Two Weapon Attack still applies. Special: This may be selected as a fighter bonus feat. Greater two weapon parry [general] Your defensive ability improves. Prerequisites: Two Weapon Attack, Two Weapon Parry, BAB +9 Benefit: Gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC which stacks with Two Weapon Parry, for a total of +4 dodge to AC. Special: This may be selected as a fighter bonus feat.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 08-22-05, 01:02 PM	Looks pretty nice. It resembles my my own TWF variant, which applies an attack penalty, but adds the damage of the offhand weapon.
Luega 08-22-05, 01:17 PM	Would it be possible to see that? I belive that the two-weapon fighting style is superior to all others. If one sword is 1d8, then two swords is 2d8. It's twice the power. Simple math, really. Plus, it looks cool. Of course, with Complete Adventurer/Warrior, two-weapon fighting has become a viable fighting style thanks to the many new feats, and the Tempest PrC. But as I said, the variant I posted above is really different. With some work it could actually be usable. It's such a different take on the whole TWF deal that it's refreshing.
tarkin 08-22-05, 01:56 PM	The guy wrote a reasonable, but worthless concept. His major mistake is shown from calling the original idea 'broken'. TWF as written is great for Rangers, Rogues, and other bonus damage fighters (you do more damage using TWF and buying two +1 flaming, shocking weapons then you can get from spending the equivelent amount of cash on a Two handed weapon). So why does he, like so many other people INSIST on it being good for everyone else? Now look at what he gets for using his system. Instead of granting rogues, rangers and other smart people with enough money for two +3 weapons a nice combat system, he grants yet ANOTHER feat that does +2 damage. Besides the numerous illogical things (increase damage? why? And what is with allowing them to get the x1.5 strength WHY? cause they need it using his rule or his system is worthless?) why would you not just take Weapon Specialization? Cause you aren't a fighter and want it? No. His idea is worthless. It takes a rich, fully developed TWF system that has lots of value, rips it out and puts in something with ZERO value. I am perfectly willing to re-engineer TWF, but you have to come up with a helpfull and usefull idea, not simply remove the things you don't like and put in an illogical, worthless copy of Weapon Specialization for Two handed Weapons.
Keenath 08-22-05, 02:23 PM	I sort of agree with Tarkin -- the variant rule here is okay, I guess, but pointless and flavorless. TWF is supposed to be useful to only some characters, and useless to others. The same is true of Power Attack and Combat Reflexes and Weapon Finesse. I've posted this a couple times before, but never heard any negative comments about it... The real problem with TWF is the fact that the improved and greater TWF feats do not give benefits appropriate to their incredible prerequisites. Improved TWF gives you an advantage that is weaker than normal TWF -- an attack at -5, as opposed to an attack at your full BAB (with appropriate penalties) -- while Greater TWF has literally superhuman prereqs, and provides an attack that, in all likelihood, only hits on a natural 20. My suggested variant, then, is this: TWF is left exactly as it is now. Improved TWF has the same prereqs, but changes to this: Benefit: Instead of the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you may make an off-hand attack for each primary-hand attack you are entitled to, based on your BAB, with appropriate penalties for each attack. In addition, when you are wielding two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes) and make no attack with the offhand weapon, you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC. When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2. Greater TWF keeps the same prereqs, and changes to this: Benefit: [copy the text of "Dual Strike", from Complete Adventurer, here] In addition, you gain the shield bonus to your AC granted by Improved Two-Weapon Fighting any time you are weilding two weapons, even when you make attacks with the off-hand weapon. Now, those are feats worth spending three slots on.
Luega 08-22-05, 03:21 PM	Heh, some harsh words there. Though, they're well justified I guess. While I agree that the way he did it might not be optimal, he does have some good ideas. If not for anything than a new feat. But, as I said earlier, the two-weapon style has really improved with the release of the Complete books. Feats like Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and Dual Strike are making sure that dual wielding are an acceptable combat option. And the Weapon Style feats in Complete Warrior (primarily those that build from two-weapon fighting. Can't remember if all of them did, or just most of them) are really cool. Plus, more attacks generally translates to more options in combat with regards to disarming, tripping, and the like. My personal opinion is that the two-weapon fighting system is good enough. It took a while, but I feel that we've finally gotten to where dual wielding is on par with the other fighting styles. If not better.
Thorak 08-22-05, 04:23 PM	Fighting with two weapons is not inherently superior. To paraphrase a favourite game, just because you wield two swords with a power of 100, that does not make your power 200. Fighting with two weapons is a difficult style to master for very little actual benefit, in the real world. There's a reason why, in Japanese history, the only swordsman of note who made his name for fighting with two swords was Musashi. And while he said it was a good style, he also said it was insanely difficult to master. I really, really don't understand why people think it should inherently be better. Not every option in the game should be just as good as any other. I have the exact same justification, for instance, for claiming that I want to be able to use my pencil as a greatsword, dealing 2d6 slashing damage for stabbing people with it. Should it work that way? Obviously not. Because a pencil is inferior. As is TWF, in most cases. It is too difficult to learn for the benefits it provides. As history shows. The few styles which had a lot of dual-weapon combat, like Rennaisance fencing with rapier and main gauche, used the second weapon almost entirely for defensive parries. There were a few attacks with it, but those weren't why you had the second weapon, you had it because it was something you could use for defense that was better than your hand.
Keenath 08-22-05, 04:35 PM	You have a point, Thorak, but there's a definite game-balance issue. One feat, no, it definitely should not make your style better. You're spending that effort just to learn the two-weapon style. No problem. It's only advantageous to certain characters, and everyone else should keep away from it. But once you start getting into Improved and Greater and so on, you have to be giving something back. You're now spending feats to improve mastery of the style, and there should be benefits at LEAST as good as Power Attack, Cleave, or Weapon Specialization. Better, in fact, because the TWF tree requires an insanely high Dex score! I don't want to trot out a tired old argument, but really -- this IS a fantasy game. The players ARE on the level of Musashi. That's why they're heroes. Nobody ever questions that Porthos, Athos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan can fight with two swords and hold off four guys apiece. If one of the Count's men tried that, he'd get skewered! That's what the Musketeers do. Otherwise the book would be called "The Guards of Cardinal Richelieu".
Thorak 08-22-05, 06:08 PM	You have a point, Thorak, but there's a definite game-balance issue. One feat, no, it definitely should not make your style better. You're spending that effort just to learn the two-weapon style. No problem. It's only advantageous to certain characters, and everyone else should keep away from it. But once you start getting into Improved and Greater and so on, you have to be giving something back. You're now spending feats to improve mastery of the style, and there should be benefits at LEAST as good as Power Attack, Cleave, or Weapon Specialization. Better, in fact, because the TWF tree requires an insanely high Dex score! I don't want to trot out a tired old argument, but really -- this IS a fantasy game. The players ARE on the level of Musashi. That's why they're heroes. Nobody ever questions that Porthos, Athos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan can fight with two swords and hold off four guys apiece. If one of the Count's men tried that, he'd get skewered! That's what the Musketeers do. Otherwise the book would be called "The Guards of Cardinal Richelieu". From what I recall of bad Musketeers movies, they only usually do that when they take someone else's sword, and only briefly. Their being great swordsmen had nothing to do with their wielding two weapons, it was something they could do, but not what made them great. Same with Musashi. Sure, he could fight with two katana. But he's just as well known for winning a duel with a single bokken (wooden sword) he carved out of an oar. He was great with a sword. that he could wield two was almost secondary. And that's what I'm saying here. IMHO, these guys are almost better represented by taking a single TWF feat, and then adding extras on, like two-weapon defense and such. Now, I wholeheartedly agree that TWD needs a boost. Or perhaps should even be rolled into TWF wholesale. But I don't see that the offensive side of TWF needs to be improved.
Luega 08-23-05, 07:01 AM	Fighting with two weapons is not inherently superior. To paraphrase a favourite game, just because you wield two swords with a power of 100, that does not make your power 200.Tales of Symphonia if I'm not mistaken. A great game indeed. Fighting with two weapons is a difficult style to master for very little actual benefit, in the real world. There's a reason why, in Japanese history, the only swordsman of note who made his name for fighting with two swords was Musashi. And while he said it was a good style, he also said it was insanely difficult to master.You're right that two-weapon fighting is a difficult style to master. That's represented by the number of feats you have to take. I really, really don't understand why people think it should inherently be better. Not every option in the game should be just as good as any other. I have the exact same justification, for instance, for claiming that I want to be able to use my pencil as a greatsword, dealing 2d6 slashing damage for stabbing people with it. Heh, I don't think that TWF is mechanically superior, nor do I think that it should be. It's different. The reason that I prefer dual wielding over the other styles is that it looks so much cooler, and there's not too many others out there who does it, so it makes me stand out. Besides, it is the most cinematic of fighting styles. I don't think that TWF needs a boost any more. As I said before, more than once may I add, the Complete books have made TWF great. It takes a great deal of feats to learn, and an even greater number of feats to master. Which I think is fine. It is the most difficult style. It's fair. And as for the real life comparison, TWF trumps two-handed fighting and single-weapon fighting. The only style that really beats TWF into a pulp is sword (or any other weapon for that matter) and shield. TWF is also weak against TWF itself.
TyraaloftheFist 08-23-05, 03:04 PM	'Some web site' (or whoever wrote the idea) had an interesting idea. I wouldn't call it worthless, but I wouldn't say it's great...one of the things that I always liked about TWF was that it pretty much symbolized the frenzied offense approach in some people, or a liking of extra versatility in others. Why it symbolized a frenzied offense to me is simple...it's actually easier, in my opinion, to just keep attacking when using two weapons, although this is based on my experiments with a katana and its scabbard. Not the best tools of investigation here, admittedly, but the result was the same with a pair of kamas and a katana/wakizashi combination. I don't know whether that just says that I'm the type to keep hacking away until something falls off, but that's why I say that. Anyway...I like Keenath's ideas for variant TWF rules better, probably because they make it feasible to try to attack somebody with all the attacks and not worry so much about missing horribly. I wouldn't know if the things in Complete Adventurer make TWFing better than it is in the core RAW, of course, as I lack the book. Complete Warrior does have a lot of TWFing Weapon Style feats, including one that gives you the ability to TWF with a halberd. Off-topic: Musashi was also known for using bokken in normal, to-the-death battles, if I remember rightly, along with pretty much creating the two-sword style...again, I speak thinking of things I can only vaguely remember, so if I'm wrong, I'm sorry. Of course, he definitely did the whole thing with the bokken made from an oar.