Two weapon style (dual wield)

[general_azure]

To answer the original question: As long as it's bound to stat requirements (dex for pretty much everything, str for heavy stuff) and comes with some penalties due to the coordination required, you can dual wield even scythes for all I care. It just shouldn't be the style to end all styles.

 

Now to read those other 6 pages...

[Zar]

I wouldnt implement Dual Wielding at all.

 

No offense but just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. As a RPG the game should try to be as supportive all kinds of character concepts.

 

Plus there are many real world combat styles that use two weapons or large weapons with two ends for that matter.

[Osvir]

Dual Wielding, in some ways I feel it should be some sort of "activated" stance akin to "The Witcher". Being able to switch between Dual Wield stance and One Handed. This way you could hold the Katana like a two-handed sword, and mid-combat do some "hidden blade" attack or even draw the second Katana by using an ability. Likewise, I would like to be able to go into combat dual-wielding two Katanas, but be able to switch back to single-wielding mid combat.

[Farbautisonn]

Well ****. If melee toons can duel wield so should magic, caster types. I want to cast Chain lightening with one hand and fireball with my other. Fair is fair for Thor and Loki and stuff.

[Adhin]

That... didn't make any sense. Also, ability 'use' is different then general auto-attack stuff. I don't think your going to use chain lightning as a standard auto-attack you can 'dual wield up on' or 'use both hands to make stronger'. It's a spell, it takes time, then it does a lot of dmg often on a large scale.

 

Unless its Skyrim, then dual wielding lightning is good stuff and combining is kinda a waste with out abusing there system.

[Sannom]

Well ****. If melee toons can duel wield so should magic, caster types. I want to cast Chain lightening with one hand and fireball with my other. Fair is fair for Thor and Loki and stuff.

Wasn't that called a Sequencer in Baldur's Gate 2?

[TMTVL]

No, a sequencer is when you store a number of spells to be cast at once. He's thinking Skyrim, obviously an example of all we want out of P:E [/sARCASM]

[Osvir]

I'm thinking more like... if I'm a dual wielder irl, would I run out and fight with both of my swords out gung-ho style or would I have them sheathed? Probably sheathed. When a battle begins I would pick up one of them, because I want to test out my opponent and find weaknesses as well as learn from his style, I might bring out both of them instantly if I'm facing an opponent I realize I have to have 2 from the very beginning. But tactically it might be better to just wield 1 sword (a Katana?) with two hands for some instances. Switching between dual-wielding and two-handed. Two-Handed being strong against some enemies, dual-wielding against other.

 

Read "Vagabond" manga, such a great piece. It's the story of Miyamoto Musashi, well.. inspired by.

 

As for magic, why not? Not Skyrim magic, but P:E magic, combining two elements in your Grimoire.

[PrimeJunta]

Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.

[Farbautisonn]

Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.

 

Everquest Style. I like it.

[Adhin]

@Osvir: my Barb/Psion who dual wields, more often then not, uses a 2H weapon. Greatsword or a Maul (almost always holding a maul). His reasoning for the maul is just to deal with locked doors or locks and pretty much always drops it to actually fight which I, personally, always found amusing in RP since everyone expected the bulky barbarian to flail around the maul. But I always liked using a 2-hander to mess around with up till I ran into something I needed to really go all out on - if he raged, he dual wielded. Didn't matter what he was using, he'd drop his weapon and take out the bastards and rage and just go wild on whatever.

 

A lot of that was driven by the myth of Miyamoto Musashi, master at dual wielding but in many of his legends often used other weapons because he either just wanted to, or did so as a means to throw his opponent off. Always liked the idea of being a master at 1 thing but spending a lot of your time messing with something your inferior at for the sake of your own enjoyment. It's like when I used to play ping pong in middle school, me and a friend got a bit to good at it, and started playing left handed to have a new learning experience with the game.... and we'd still often win out against others but it ultimately was just amusing.

 

So yeah, I agree being able to unsheath a single weapon of your 2 as a starter with out having to have a second like weapon or other to do that would be nice. Generally less inventory management to do that kind of thing would be nice. BG had that issue with how it handled DW'ing in that once you did, you couldn't really use anything else but swap out your main hand... which is just awful. So if nothing else, hopefully each weapon set is just that, let me use a pair of swords and a 2h'er as separate sets with out inventory management mid combat.

[Somna]

Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.

 

Everquest Style. I like it.

 

Bash them twice, then page flip for papercut damage?

[Farbautisonn]

Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.

 

Everquest Style. I like it.

 

Bash them twice, then page flip for papercut damage?

 

Someone hasnt played everquest.... :D.

[Somna]

Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.

 

Everquest Style. I like it.

 

Bash them twice, then page flip for papercut damage?

 

Someone hasnt played everquest.... :D.

 

Pfff, I never like their ornament status there.

[AGX-17]

Maybe you can dual-wield two grimoires.

 

In the old JRPG Tales of Phantasia, the summoner character Klarth literally used literature to bludgeon enemies. I would only support dual-wielding grimoires if they could be used for primary melee attacks like paper/vellum cudgels.

[Lephys]

I'm fairly certain that Skyrim didn't invent the notion of dual-wielding magic, a notion of which I am highly in favor, u_u.

[Adhin]

I think with something like the 3E Warlock where the base ability is flinging eldritch bolts that 'dual wielding' it makes sense. Complex spells or priest rites or psionics just... none of that really makes any sense for dual wielding it. Untill the spell just comes down to you flinging a bolt with just your 1 hand, makes no sense.

 

-edit-

Keep in mind, the Warlocks base ability might as well be an auto-attack for the class in a cRPG sense. Think there is an epic feat for Warlocks in 3E that lets you fire 2 per turn as well which could easily be considered dual wielding it.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Adhin

[Lephys]

Well, maybe simpler spells could be dual-wielded, and more complex ones could not. It's not as if we're restricted by how magic actually works in the real world or anything. That isn't to say they should simply make the magic lore thus that everything is dual-wieldable, no matter what the consequences to the lore quality. But, everything doesn't HAVE to be "perform this fancy ritual from this book, then this happens."

 

But, at the most basic game design level, I think some form of dual-wielding with spells (as opposed to having more combat effectiveness with a weapon or with a shield in your hand) adds a nice layer to the combat magic. Just the same as dual-wielding with weapons does the same for martial combat. You can get benefits and different feats and skills, usually, with 2 weapons as opposed to simply getting a bigger, better weapon.

 

Maybe it's something as simple as splitting the focus of a spell, so that you launch two half-power fireballs (to go with a generic wizard spell example) at two different targets, rather than only ever one regular fireball at one target. Same numbers (so dual-wielding isn't "better" than its counterpart), but more strategic options. But maybe you can only do that if you're dual-wielding grimoires, as was suggested. Purely for example. *shrug*

[Adhin]

I agree to some extent but my point came down to dual wielding only really works if its the auto-attack, or base attack. You can make a use-skill that 'requires' dual wielding, but mechanically it functions the same as other use stuff which spells are. You have to manually select it, you have to watch said animations out and so on. So with that in mind IF mages have an auto-attack like thing they can do (with out staffs, or with 'wands' I guess, though wands are stupid) then it makes sense to allow dual wielding to me.

 

Hell giving wizards and priests, either/or, a ranged magic attack that can be used as there 'auto' attack and allowing that to be dual wielded or with a shield which cuts down on the damage or something I could see being interesting. But mechanically, trying to dual wield a fireball just results in 2 fireballs at the same time and it, to me at least, seems kind of pointless then.

 

So base auto-attack spell thing that can be doubled up on for speedy attacks... yes. Dual wielding 'use' abilities makes no sense mechanically.

 

-edit-

Spell splitting like the fireball I can see being real interesting though I'll give ya that. I don't really consider that 'dual wielding' though. Always liked when games let you split up targets with magic missile like PnP does though. Anyway I could see the spell splitting happen, they could call it dual wielding spells if they wanted but I just can't see that really being 'dual wielding' in the same sense as 2 weapons. Ultimately that, to me at least, falls into the same category as 'dual daggers' being a single item. And no idea how they would handle allowing you to do 2 completely different spells at the same time with out some kind of forced pause feature for it.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Adhin

[Lephys]

So base auto-attack spell thing that can be doubled up on for speedy attacks... yes. Dual wielding 'use' abilities makes no sense mechanically.

 

I get what you were saying, but... it does make sense. I mean, I just pointed out how. Whether you decide to let dual-wielding affect attack speed or spell targeting, it's a mechanic that can be easily applied in either situation. Sure, it's a whole new implementation to try to figure out the functional specifics of, but it works. It's exactly the same principle as the difference between dual-wielding shortswords and wielding a short sword and a shield. The shield does something different than the other shortsword. Maybe it inherently increases your AC, and your block chance, but you generally get access to skills (like shield bash) and such that you only have access to with that configuration.

 

In that respect, mechanically, dual-wielding is no different from wielding a different weapon type (like an axe versus a bow). There's no reason spells and their accompanying "weapons" couldn't work the same way. Mechanically, you could 2-hand a grimoire and gain different bonuses to focus, cast-speed, spell limits, etc than if you had a grimoire in one hand and a dagger in the other. Not to mention the gain/loss of the dagger's attack, respectively.

 

It's perfectly feasible as a possibility is all.

[Adhin]

Yeah only major difference is its a physical object your character is holding. Why I think mages should have an magical based auto-attack function, based around weapons or not. Doubt we'll actually be equipping grimoire's but then again maybe we will. If we do probably wont be a weapon slot though. Ahh I dunno I just don't think it'll feel the same but I agree mechanically it's would all kind of be the same. Though considering you'd be opening the book to read a spell from it (in PE's case) dual wielding would severely hamper your ability to flip pages.

 

If they had some kinda dual-wield metamagic that let you cast 2 spells simultaneous if you set up the combo ahead of time. Kinda like weapon sets, I think that would be a mechanically interesting spell combo'ing thing. Not sure how they'd handle that but I could see it just showing up as another tiered use in the spell book, maybe you'd get 1 slot to combo spells up. Only reason im thinking of it that way is in a turn based game (full turn based) all this could be handled easily. Real time though presents a lot of useability issues, outside of being able to pause when you want. They'd need some kind of setup prior to combat to really allow for a lot of that. It's one reason they didn't do multi-target on magic missile in the other games.

 

Anyway I agree it's a feasible possibility, they'd just need to come up with some interesting methods for it, user interface wise.

[TMTVL]

Actually, it'd be fun to see a class whose primary attack ability is just slapping ofuda on everything.

[Osvir]

Maybe combining 2 Level 1 Spells (or more) in the Grimoire gives you 1 Level 2 spell?

 

Of course there are lots of other balance, you have to "know" or be "applicable" (Kind of how Legend of Grimrock does it, in concept). You need to have "researched" the correct skill before being able to combine or whatnot~ a combined spell could suffer more "cooldown" or "locking out" than a regular spell would or simply just follow the "Higher Level Spell" rules.

[Adhin]

Yeah, as I mentioned before I'd love, absolutely LOVE to see some of the Warlock Eldritch blast ideas make its way into the wizard. I'd actually play one if they did that. I mean they stated wanted to have a difference between some constant use stuff and the grimoire/tome/magy book stuff. Then again looks like they're current design has tier 1 (and 2 maybe) eventually become 'per encounter' which I'd imagine means its timer resets everytime combat is over which is a nifty way to go about ensuring mages always have something to do in later levels.

 

Anyway, Warlock stuff I was mentioning. Basically for anyone unfamiliar with it you started with a magic dmg based bolt (hit 1 target). You could get specific Warlock invokes that allowed you to replace the energy type (say to fire, or acid) and replace the shape of the blast. So you could turn the single target bolt of magic dmg into an acidic cone spray, or acidic chained bolt that hit 3 targets (but ignored party members for group friendly firing). They had a lot of different 'energy' types beyond the basic dmg along with buncha other shapes like fireballs or novas or extending the range of the blast.

 

Something like that as a base feature as an 'auto-attack' where you pick a shape-style and energy source and your wizard just blasts away with it till you use another spell could be interesting. I think though you'd want to tone down the 'shapes' due to all the other spells, something simple to mimic weapon use. Could do a single blast allowing something in the off hand, dual wield the blasts for a quicker volley, or double-up on it for a more powerful singular blast. Would allow for the weapon like 'styles' and also let wizards spend there talents on increasing the kind of elemental dmg they could do with that.

 

It would ultimately have to be relatively weak in comparison to spells though, DnD terms i'd probably keep it around 1d6 or so, maybe + from attributes up to a limit (based on level). Warlocks was more powerful, 1d6 every other lvl for awhile, ended at 9d6 by 20... basically infinite fireballs at that point, bit excessive for what im thinking of. As a site note, the wizard example in last update showed a starting ability to added a blast to wand use. They may already have something like that in, may require wands though, or just talents that amplify wand useage or something, I dunno. Still think wands are stupid though but that's a personal preference heh.

[Lephys]

It wouldn't really have to be that weak compared to spells. You'd just have to make sure there was a significant enough trade-off. If you run around dual-wielding blasty wands and just fire elemental energy at people all day like a magic berzerker, your nice, precise, involved spell-casting should suffer. Well, in the scheme of things. It doesn't obviously decrease. It just never increases as much as it would if you focused on that.

 

Overly simplistic example: You hit level 2. You can either add 10 damage or a new elemental type to your wand blasting, or you can learn 2 new tier-1 spells. Let's assume you started with... I dunno, 3 spells. Well, you can either get new ones and be more versatile with spells, or you can become a wand BAMF. But you can't do both. You could feasibly have wands get pretty awesome, IF you spent enough of your hard-earned progression points on making them so, rather than on making your spell repertoire and effectiveness awesome. You could also have any degree of hybrid, obviously. But, you don't have to assume that the Wizard must get tons and tons of spells, and therefore you can't make wands too good.

 

I think something simple would be to require a focus or something (maybe a grimoire, I dunno... whatever they feel like going with) to be equipped in one hand (in the event that dual-wanding is available) to be more effective with spells. Then, if you decided to dual-wand, again, you're trading-off the spell-boost for the benefits of both wands. And vice versa if you want the focus and the spell boost.