Two weapon style (dual wield)

[Alexjh]

2 Handed Weapons: High Damage, No Defense bonus

Dual Wielding: Below normal damage but x2, slight defensive bonus

Weapon and Shield: Normal Damage, big defensive bonus

Single 1 handed weapon: Slightly above normal damage, greater accuracy, slight defensive bonus

 

Honestly I hope they don't do it like that, it's been done in so many games and they can never get the balance right, usually favoring dualwielding. If they really must have it that "Greatswords give moar damage!" and the like then I hope they mix it up a bit, such as giving two-handers greater reach as well (if formations matter then reach will then be useful), shields should not just be 'the tank' option but be used as a weapon as well as for defence, (and no, it won't be 'unbalanced', sword and shield will give increased damage and defence, greatsword would give increased damage and reach, done right it would be fine) dualwielding I honestly can't think of an advantage that using a shield wouldn't also logically give better (going all-out attack without a shield is suicide but I suppose some people will want it for the 'cool' factor though I personally don't think it's cool so can't be bothered to come up with one for them, insert whatever you want for them here), and single 1-handed weapons should give the benefit of a free hand for things like grappling (which is already confirmed not to be likely to be in the game unfortunately), spellcasting etc.

 

Completely unrelated opinion here, but I just don't see the appeal of dualwielding personally, and seeing a character in a game dualwielding just makes me eyeroll as they are usually the character that thinks he's cool or something and when I see one charging me my first thought is always "Why can't I just smash the guy down with the shield? He doesn't have any means of stopping me and hasn't got the reach to keep out of range! Oh right, because people think shields are only for defense..." but I suppose everyone has their own tastes. Shame the poll doesn't reflect that by giving people the option to say "I don't like them/don't want them" though.

 

I do qualify that that list was a gross simplification of the gist of what would hopefully a more complex system. I think the thing to bear in mind is that I think people go with the assumption that a greatsword does more damage than a longsword "because its bigger", whereas it's actually going to be a mixture of two hands being stronger than one, longer length meaning greater magnification of force at the end and greater weight magnifying it further. The trade off obviously being that you only get to make one movement with your weapon at a time vs shield / dual wielding and the weight means its harder to do that that just "mono-wielding"

 

I think the thing here though is you have to bear in mind that counter-intuitive as it may seem, going for "Hollywood realism" in the case of melee fighting actually gives move strategic depth and player choice. I think the thing with dual-wielding is that in the way its shown on TV, it's fundementally a showy style of combat, but isn't entirely without merit - though shields are powerful weapons in their own right (and I fully support being able to build a character who uses their shield offectively offensively) having a sidearm of a small weapon like daggers or even including preprepared projectile weapons like pistols and 1-handed crossbows could easily tiebreak a close quarters fight.

 

But honestly even if we were going to go the 100% realism route, I'd still want dual-wielding included: if people want to "look cool" and die early that's their choice, not the designers to make for them.

[Lephys]

Yeah, I'm 100% against eliminating the entire system, because dual-wielding is a perfectly viable means of melee combat. It's not something video games simply fabricated.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Honestly I hope they don't do it like that, it's been done in so many games and they can never get the balance right, usually favoring dualwielding. If they really must have it that "Greatswords give moar damage!" and the like then I hope they mix it up a bit, such as giving two-handers greater reach as well (if formations matter then reach will then be useful), shields should not just be 'the tank' option but be used as a weapon as well as for defence, (and no, it won't be 'unbalanced', sword and shield will give increased damage and defence, greatsword would give increased damage and reach, done right it would be fine) dualwielding I honestly can't think of an advantage that using a shield wouldn't also logically give better (going all-out attack without a shield is suicide but I suppose some people will want it for the 'cool' factor though I personally don't think it's cool so can't be bothered to come up with one for them, insert whatever you want for them here), and single 1-handed weapons should give the benefit of a free hand for things like grappling (which is already confirmed not to be likely to be in the game unfortunately), spellcasting etc.

 

I think that D&D 3.X/Pathfinder did dual-wielding very well. While it has the potential to deal higher amounts of damage than Two-Handed weapons, it is more feat and ability intensive(3 feats and 19 DEX) to be competitive. I think that PE could take inspiration from Pathfinder for combat styles, with feats(or whatever the PE analogue) for all combat styles that correct weaknesses and add strengths.

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah, I'm 100% against eliminating the entire system, because dual-wielding is a perfectly viable means of melee combat. It's not something video games simply fabricated.

 

Sure, it's viable. Also marginal.

 

I've no doubt it'll be in because so many players would howl bloody murder if it wasn't (the "badass factor"), but I think the effort needed to implement it would have better payoff in terms of richness of gameplay elsewhere.

[Sacred_Path]

Yeah, I'm 100% against eliminating the entire system, because dual-wielding is a perfectly viable means of melee combat. It's not something video games simply fabricated.

 

What games fabricated is the balance issue.

 

Dual wielding doesn't help when someone in heavy plate armor and a shield simply wades into you.

It doesn't do "more damage", or even comparable damage, to a brute cracking your skull with a two-handed hammer.

 

That was part of my 'silly hat' remark.

[Jojobobo]

I like sword and dagger duelist style. I think duel wielding, if it were to be used for larger weapons, should be limitted in the game or difficult to learn - in previous IE games it was all too easy to get a couple of feats and then you were good to go. I'd imagine having that level of coordination to use two weapons effectively is quite a tricky task.

[Diagoras]

Firearm dual wielding was part-and-parcel of certain 16th century cavalry tactics, to toss in my two cents. Usually during slow charges against enemy infantry, to soften up the targets before crashing home with sword or lance. As you're headed for an enemy infantry formation, accuracy isn't as relevant, and the ability to draw and fire more shots is important to soften up the target.

 

However, I think it's important to note that both the fantasy elements and the entirely different scale of battles open up a lot of possibilities. Obviously, you can't stray too far from the source material, but the addition of magical enchanting opens up new possibilities in regards to arms and armor tactics. And we should note that adventurers are not engaging in military combat, but irregular skirmish combat, meaning that many of the dictates that hold true due to the limitations and needs of rising national armies might not apply. I know, for instance, that the devs might have quite a bit of leeway regarding firearms in the game, as many of the traits we attribute to 15th and 16th century firearms have much more to do with the user's training and their mass-produced nature for a specific battlefield role than anything innate to the weapon. Just indicating that this might apply to other things as well, like dual wielding, and to keep an open mind.

[Wulfic]

1:24

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn3q3XYWUNU

 

It looks really ineffective

 

If u look closer they dont try to hit eachother, its obviously because this is only for the show but still you see how hard it is to hold two swords at once ?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Wulfic

[JOG]

The main difference between real life dual wielding and the RPG variant is that in real life it was/is a tactical advantage you get: the opponent doesn't know from which side you're going to attack, in RPG terms you get an attack bonus but no extra attacks. RPG dual wielding is the exact opposite: you get extra attacks at an attack penalty.

[Dream]

It looks really ineffective

 

If u look closer they dont try to hit eachother, its obviously because this is only for the show but still you see how hard it is to hold two swords at once ?

 

I think the issue there is they didn't have a very good choreographer.

 

Also the fact that realistic sword fights in general look boring as ****.

[Pipyui]

I'm not against dual-wielding, but I'll admit that I'm not sure that I like the damage-defense fighter spectrum that it implies. I'd rather that different melee styles broaden the fighting spectrum rather than deepen it, if that makes sense. I'd rather have three archtypes like, just to use my previous example, attack, defense, and utility, and have to effectively match 2 of the 3 than have just a linear spectrum between two options. In my mind, there is little need to subdivide such a 2-trait fighter role any more than offense, defense, and a midpoint between.

 

Don't misunderstand, I'm not implying that dual-wielding automagically locks us into this latter model, I'm trying to say that I'd like my weapon preferences to reflect a broader one, and as such that a weapon preference like dual-wielding should be more than "slightly more damage than this equipment combination, but slightly less defense too."

 

Just my 2 cents, anyway.

[Aldereth]

In my younger days. I am for this. Lately, doesn't really care. And when I think about it, in some way, it is a kind of failing ofr cRPG combat system. Melee has been kind of stuck in this dances of 2 health bar for so long that, we are adding frivolous thing to make some variety and appearance of depth.

[Tamerlane]

Lump me in with the group that isn't inherently opposed to dual-wielding but thinks that "well, they just get to attack twice as much!" is pretty god damn lazy.

 

And a bit of a balance issue where magic gear comes into play. If wielding two swords is "balanced" in comparison to wielding one large sword, then two enchanted swords will probably be a good deal better than one large enchanted sword.

[PrimeJunta]

Don't misunderstand, I'm not implying that dual-wielding automagically locks us into this latter model, I'm trying to say that I'd like my weapon preferences to reflect a broader one, and as such that a weapon preference like dual-wielding should be more than "slightly more damage than this equipment combination, but slightly less defense too."

 

If they do put in dual-wielding, I hope it's done for better reasons than the badass factor. It could be a useful building-block in a particular type of character. High DEX has secondary benefits, other than just being able to hit things better, so a fighter with lower STR and higher DEX might trade off some damage per blow and perhaps the ability to use some massive badass weapons, but gain the ability to dual-wield, which would partially offset this.

 

Or we could have different styles be more effective against particular types of enemies. So a dual-wielder, having an advantage in feinting and parrying, might fight better against other humanoids, but would be at a disadvantage fighting a large, thick-skinned beast compared to someone landing heavier but less precise blows.

 

Somebody already mentioned the D&D distinction between different damage types (piercing/slashing/crushing). If done intelligently, dual-wielding could mesh well with this type of system too.

 

If it was PnP -- and I've actually done this in PnP -- weapon concealability also comes into play. You might not be able to wear full heavy combat gear to the King's ball, but having a couple of daggers tucked away in your boots might come in very handy, and in this situation someone skillfully wielding two might be at a significant advantage. Dunno how well that would work in a cRPG; most players would probably object to having the computer force you not to use your most effective stuff where they might find it totally logical in a game with a human DM.

[Vargr]

Oooh, this old thing! It always shows up whenever a new game involving swords is being developed, doesn't it?

 

 

I love the option of dual wielding. I hate when dual wielding is restricted to dual daggers (a la Dragon Age 2).

 

As well as hate when in order to dual wield, you have to invest loads of points in dexterity or the equivalent ability score.

Thus creating a "duelist" kind of character. Meaning he's very precise and deliberate.

Usually when I play a character which dual wields, I typically use a sword+axe combo. I don't imagine the character as a duelist who

slowly wears his opponent down with quick, light strikes, but rather puts weight behind the swings. He swings his broadsword with the

intention of shattering the chainmail of his opponent and cut deep into his abdomen.

He swings his axe towards his opponent's head with the pure intent of cleaving the helmet and sinking the axe-head down to his

enemy's teeth! A ferocious, brutal combat style. Not friggin dancing around with a rapier and dagger!

/end rant

 

I also hate when it is poorly implemented.

 

I would like to see a system where rather than doing more damage faster, it instead offers tactical flexibility.

If you can gain advanced combat moves based on what weapon is being used, this could be very nice indeed.

Especially if, like previously said, different weapon types would be effective against different types of armor.

 

For instance, an axe might give you a "hooking" kind of special move, which lets you hook shields and maybe weapons and pull them aside,

leaving your opponent open and extremely vulnerable to attacks for a very brief moment.

 

A sword might give you a special attack which lets you swing three times very swiftly.

Or (depending on sword type) a powerful thrust ability which ignores all armor except Plate.

 

Give a warrior a sword and axe combo against a sword-and-board opponent, and combine these two abilites.

 

 

Of course, just an example off the top of my head about roughly what I'd like to see. Lots of balancing and stuff to be done for it to work right.

 

Dual wielding is such a difficult thing to get right in a game. Especially when ALL styles should be balanced and equally useful.

 

The following is... not really ideal, cause the idea of a weapon doing less damage because of fighting style is stupid. But anyway, here's how

I see it balanced.... I think:

 

1h weapon + shield

Low Attack

High Defense

Average Flexibility

 

2h weapon

High Attack

Average Defense

Low Flexibility

 

1h weapon + 1h weapon

Average Attack

Low Defense

High Flexibility

 

 

 

Bah!

 

 

In short! I want it, but I want it balanced!

Edited December 15, 2012 by Vargr

[Lephys]

What games fabricated is the balance issue.

 

Dual wielding doesn't help when someone in heavy plate armor and a shield simply wades into you.

It doesn't do "more damage", or even comparable damage, to a brute cracking your skull with a two-handed hammer.

 

That was part of my 'silly hat' remark.

 

I wasn't directing my "This is why I'm against removing it completely" remark at anyone, in particular. I was just trying to emphasize the fact that the only good point that's been brought up against dual-wielding is that video games tend to do it badly, which suggests that it could be done better. Obviously developers have had a tendency to just stick with the super-simplistic "you get more attack/damage, but less defense/armor" model. I don't think it's been that they keep trying their hardest to add depth to the system, and it's just ultra difficult or something.

 

Dual-weapon fighting allows you to do different things than single-weapon fighting. If anything, you're going to do less damage (in general), really, than with a weapon wielded with 2 hands, or with a single weapon. With two weapons, you'd have to worry about balance more, as an attack with the other hand has to be feasible. So, you can't go around swinging one arm as hard as you can. Also, using Junta's scenario of the double-daggers in a concealed scenario, if you're discovered and have to fight your way out of something with 2 daggers (and you know what you're doing with 2 weapons), you can parry Foe A's weapon with your left hand in such a way as to follow up by striking Foe B with your right hand.

 

Another simple example that a friend of mine actually showed me with historically accurate viking weapons (he's a history buff and LOVES the vikings) is, if you're fighting with a sword and a handaxe, you can actually use the bottom of the axe blade as a hook to grab the top of someone's shield and pull it down, allowing your sword to bypass their shield defense.

 

So, it's stuff like that. I think it should be a different method of fighting (just like using a bow is different, rather than simply more damaging, than using a melee weapon). And I really like Junta's example of it being more effective against certain foes (like humans being susceptible to feign moves) and being less effective against others (like a bear).

 

I am wholeheartedly against the usage of dual-wielding sheerly for badass aesthetics and overly-simplified damage boosts. I just think that's reason to improve the implementation, rather than remove the mechanic.

[PrimeJunta]

@Lephys: I like the way you're thinking. Those would be dead simple to model in a cRPG. Make it harder to flank a dual-wielder, and give your handaxe/sword combo a bonus against sword-n-board. Lots of possibilities.

[Lephys]

Sorry Vargr. I didn't see your post before I finished mine, haha. Nailed it with the shield hooking, 8D. Sorry for technically copying you on some things, haha.

 

But yeah, regarding how you don't want a fencing champion as a dual-wieldist, there are ways to be very, very aggressive (even berzerker-like) with dual weapons, yet, you're still using them in a tactically different manner than you would a single weapon. It's the same thing as being very precise and organized in your usage of a 2-handed sword or axe as opposed to using your strength and the weapons weight to basically keep so much pressure on your enemy that you don't really set up for formal parries and maneuvers. The number of weapons you use and how much finesse your fighting style uses is not mutually exclusive.

 

Either way, it obviously doesn't equal just more DPS than before. You don't just run about double-karate-chopping at people with your two weapons. I'd LOVE to see P:E break from this with an awesome dual-wielding system.

 

Also, I'd love to see a shield do more than change armor numbers and block percentages. Obviously it's a much more defensive piece of equipment, but I think it should be treated merely as a different off-hand weapon, and should get as much utility in combat as anything else (albeit probably less actual mortal damage). But, that's kind of the point... it's the whole reason it's called "off-hand" (with the exception of maybe daggers, or small swords if you're just a ridiculously ambidexterous person); the off-hand weapon supports your main-hand weapon, in general (you could obviously flip those roles for brief periods in battle to confuse the enemy... intentionally parry with your sword, only to focus on a powerful shield bash, etc.). That would be very simple to implement. It would just require a little more effort and resources than the typical system.

[Tamerlane]

I said earlier that I don't like dual-wielding as a simple "I attack twice as often" thing, but I didn't really elaborate on what I might be interested in.

 

I think it'd be neat if a dual-wielding character attacked attacked with only the primary weapon, but got a second attack with the off-hand if they missed or were blocked. Similarly, if your present target misses you or you parry their attack, you get an automatic counterattack with the off-hand weapon. Maybe there's a perk/feat to make it apply to any attacker. Maybe that's all perk territory. I dunno.

 

I guess that's more of a "finesse" thing and it might not mesh all that well with Vargr's "I'm strong enough to pick up two weapons and whale away at a mother****er" dual-wielder, and I hope that that's A Legitimate Thing, too. They've said that they want to give fighters more in the way of useable feats and "stances" than in the IE games so between those and stat requirements and the design of the weapons, I think they've got a lot of room to implement both a more interesting "finesse dual-wield" and a more smash-your-way-through dual-wielder.

[Tamerlane]

Incidentally, the second-last option in those polls made me imagine a sword-flail which is pretty ****ing awesome.

[TMTVL]

The only experience I have with dual-wielding IRL is kung-fu, so I don't think it's really in place in a WRPG. Still, my two cents are that you tend to be able to attack quite a bit faster, yet blocking becomes a bit more of a challenge. Also, we use either dual straight swords, or dual sabers, which are about an arm long. I believe in some Japanese koryu there's dual wielding, where they use two hand-and-half swords (the famous katana), yet I haven't really seen any of these styles, so I can't vouch for their effectivity. I'm also not really up to date on western fencing after the Roman Empire.

[Sacred_Path]

Another simple example that a friend of mine actually showed me with historically accurate viking weapons (he's a history buff and LOVES the vikings) is, if you're fighting with a sword and a handaxe, you can actually use the bottom of the axe blade as a hook to grab the top of someone's shield and pull it down, allowing your sword to bypass their shield defense.

 

Theoretically possible, though something like that should require a strength check or similar mechanic. It would actually be an example of bad implementation and balancing state-of-mind to just say "axe in off-hand negates shield protection!".

 

It's also another example why dual-wielding is too specific in its uses to justify implementation in an FRPG. Two lightly armored human duelists? Yes. Against heavy armor+ big shield? No. Against animals/ huge monsters that don't have the intelligence or anatomy to call for subtle tactical differences? No. In tight formations in mass combat? No.

 

It's one of the gimmicks, like romances and monks, that won't ruin my game experience but I must question the reasons for implementing them.

[Atreides]

I'd like to see different styles, dual-wield, sword/shield, double-handed greatsword, dual-handed longsword, pole-arms/spears etc. with their advantages and disadvantages within reason (swords replaceable with other weapons).

 

Defaulting to sword/shield combination because everything else is sub-optimal in the game feels restrictive. For example in BG, if people use a single-handed sword they would equip a huge shield in their off-hand because there's no reason not to.

[Karkarov]

Dual wielding is okay as long as the off hand weapon doesn't double attacks and instead actually focuses more on buffing things like parry chance etc. One of the few people who developed a real world dual wielding style was Miyamoto Musashi which he called Niten Ichi Ryu. Point being his off hand weapon was always smaller and he typically only used it for parries or the tie down an opponents weapon so he could create a opening to attack with his katana.

 

Also I want to echo one part of what Sacred_Path said. Dual Wielding, while not a gimmick to me, is something that realistically is designed for duals and small scale personal engagements. In any form of large melee or against "monsters" like a dragon dual wielding really would not be viable realistically.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Karkarov

[Dream]

against "monsters" like a dragon dual wielding really would not be viable realistically.

 

Oh, really?

 

Been fighting dragons, have you?