Two weapon style (dual wield)

What kind of weapon types should the game mechanics allow us?

Should characters be able to use same size weapons like katana and long sword or off hand weapons should be smaller in size?

Also, should the game restrict us to use different types of weapons like you will not be able to use long sword as main and flail as off hand weapon?

What's your opion and choices?

Edited December 13, 2012 by nerevar

I'd actually pass on this RPG cliché altogether. If you have to have it, then small weapons only for the off hand. And please don't make it overpowered, like having double the number of attacks per second. Shouldn't work like that.

Perhaps a simple approach would be to give each weapon a Strength requirement, then apply a, say, -5 Strength penalty to the off-hand weapon. That way, if you are physically strong enough, you can whip around a pair of Katana quite readily. However, the Strength penalty will still reduce the effectiveness of the off-hand weapon in terms of pure damage.

Dual wield two of anything 'cause it looks awesome. Besides, how else are we going to replicate Spartacus?

I simultaneously love dual-wielding and hate how it's always implemented as simply "the ability to deal more damage more quickly where you once could not."

 

As long as it provides an actual difference in fighting style (complete with trade-off detriments, 8D), I'm all for it.

 

And while I'm not 100% opposed to the dual-wielding of full-sized weapons, this typically begins at a point a lot closer to the "this is just plain ridiculous" threshold (i.e. dual-wielding greatswords or polearms) and hardly ever serves any other end than the "I totally do so much more hardcore damage now, because I've multiplied my awesome weaponization by 2!!!" idea. I'm not saying it's impossible to implement it well (regular full-size weapons, not the greatswords/polearms thing), but I don't know how much we could reasonably expect to gain from that as opposed to the much-more-feasible small-weapons-in-off-hand approach. *shrug*

I don't know how much we could reasonably expect to gain from that as opposed to the much-more-feasible small-weapons-in-off-hand approach. *shrug*

 

You gain the option of looking badass.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELF7U-gLpg0

You gain the option of looking badass.

 

Yes, but how much of the option of looking badass?

 

I joke. I know it's a game, and part of the reason we play is to get to experience things that we don't get to in our daily lives. Running amok with a battleaxe in each hand is one of those things. So... *makes scale gesture with hands*, haha.

 

The only thing I don't want is for looking badass to become more of a priority than not-breaking the weapon system. I'll accept that fantasy-guy Steve McSlaughterStab is somehow powerful enough to wield two greatswords, but I don't want him to literally just be 12-times as effective as anyone else with any other weapons in the game. There should be a con to one-handed greatsword wielding. Maybe they transform into prettygoodswords? *shrug*

You gain the option of looking badass.

 

Yes, but how much of the option of looking badass?

 

I joke. I know it's a game, and part of the reason we play is to get to experience things that we don't get to in our daily lives. Running amok with a battleaxe in each hand is one of those things. So... *makes scale gesture with hands*, haha.

 

The only thing I don't want is for looking badass to become more of a priority than not-breaking the weapon system. I'll accept that fantasy-guy Steve McSlaughterStab is somehow powerful enough to wield two greatswords, but I don't want him to literally just be 12-times as effective as anyone else with any other weapons in the game. There should be a con to one-handed greatsword wielding. Maybe they transform into prettygoodswords? *shrug*

 

I was more referring to dual wielding two normal weapons as opposed to being forced to use a dagger in the offhand when I was referring to looking badass. However, if they do include dual wielding 2h weapons they should restrict it as a feat for very high strength and level fighters and then do what D2 did (different damages ranges for holding weapons in 1 hand instead of 2).

 

As for balancing dual wielding in general they could just do what BG2 did (with the numbers tweaked somewhat so that it becomes more of a style choice).

Just implement dual-wielding how it was in 3.X and Pathfinder. Slap an attack(hit) penalty on both weapons, off-hand only gets .5 strength bonus to damage, and it requires feats(or whatever the PE analogue is) to gain access to more off-hand attacks per round(or however PE calculates attack rate) and/or unique abilities.

Edited December 14, 2012 by KaineParker

I'm with Lephys on this one. Just to add my own thoughts, dual-wielding can be neat, but it's gonna need to have a niche to fill. We've already got 2H weapons for the "no shield but more damage" business, and 2H weapons actually make sense. So where does that leave dual-wielding? Best thing I can come up with is using one sword to distract, and a dagger for close piercing, and that's pretty washy. Dual daggers? If I'm getting that close in combat, I'd prefer a free hand to a second blade.

 

Maybe you could have a one-and-a-half hand style instead? Wield a bastard sword, and have a utility belt of throwing knives, bombs, whathaveyou. Then you'd have stick and board attack-defense, 2H attack-attack, and 1-1/2 sword attack-utility. I'm just throwing ideas around here.

 

Edit: Sounded initially like I was putting words in Lephys mouth - didn't intend to do that.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Pipyui

I would like to be able to dual wield anything (within reason) as long as there are appropriate trade offs and it isn't simply a case of equiping the two most powerful weapons you can find, perhaps weilding a shorter sword in the off-hand gives better defense as it's easier to block/manouvre with?

How about "dual wielding" as it was actually done in most cases?

 

One extra "sneaky" (aka "dirty") attack per round with an offhand dagger, either non-parryable or auto-critical. (You feint an attack with your rapier and trust with the dagger.) Alternatively use a parrying dagger (i.e. a foldable handheld trident) for block & counterstrike maneuvers.

 

If the common RPG dual-wielding aka double attacks with twin swords is implemented, it should be a combat style for fighters only, as it's very difficult and needs a lot of training. And there it would be balanced, as the claymore would do more damage, and the sword & shield combo protect better.

 

The D&D rogue can't use either out of the box, is agile enough so that he doesn't need a shield, and too weak to lift the two handed sword, aside from roleplaying there is no sane reason to forego dual wielding, so some game systems even implement dual wielding as a special rogue feature. I for one am sick of all the DPS "rogues" (and I AM a dedicated rogue player); double attacks for an insignificant to-hit penalty is cheesy enough already, no need to pair it with massive sneak attacks, and it's Rogue, for Olidammara's sake, "Rogue", not "Sword dancer"

Edited December 14, 2012 by JOG

I used to practice kendo, and other martial arts go figure, And i Practice DW for some time i can tell you this, There is no penalty what so ever is just a matter of how much time you spend polishing your skill. I even practiced Aijutsu with 2 swords and it was close to imposible for me but my master was doing it just fine. Its all about practice.

 

Now lets talk about Gameplay and how i would like DW to be implemented.

 

for me DW is all about dodging, perring and attacking, you dont block because with one hand you loose the powefull grip you may need to stop a powefull blow.

 

So Considering defending may be one rating that is the sum of Dodge, Perry and Block.

DW gains no bonuses to block, A Bonus on Perry (one for each weapon), and a Realy small Bonus for dodge.

SS should have big bonus to block, a little bonus to perry, and no bonus to Dodge, and the bonus to dodge depends on the type of shild using (tower shild penalies, etc).

 

As far as attacking, each weapon has a weapon speed, they sum each other and then its divided by two, and you atack with each weapon , a Sucksefull parry gives a free attack.

 

Personaly each time i practiced with two bokens, i perrierd and conter attacked in the same motion from diferent angles like and hands. that was realy hard for some of my parters to block. the fact that you could strike to places at ance its realy deciging.

 

For that reason it should give you a bonus to hit.

 

In the end its all about the combination of weapons gives you the diferent combinations of stats.

Example, an Axe and DAgger could give you, Dagger, little block, Big Perry, some dodge, the Axe in the other hand, some block, No perry (i have no expirience trying to perry with a hachet), Some dodge, but it has good damage its fast swing and deals grate block damage to Stamina.

 

And so on, thinking about the good and the bad of each weapon, and thinking how some hero weapon master could use them to a level of legend.

Where's the option for no dualwielding. Seriously, dualwielding just pisses me off these days with how munchkinny and stuff. Plus, if you think shields are for more defensive fighting then rethink: 16lbs of wood being smashed into your face is damn offensive. Shields were used as much as a weapon as any other weapon, and it reduced the need to fight defensively allowing the fighter to be more aggressive. Fencing is two letters away from defencing for a reason, without a shield you focus more on defense than attacking...

If we think about it, there are more or less 4 basic forms of melee weapon usage, and I do think they all have slightly different role to each other enough to justify their existance:

 

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

 

But really this doesn't even matter, the largest part of the reason this choice exists is basically because people like options for their character and people consider dual wielding cool, therefore, it is a good option to include. It's a staple of the genre and I don't see "but its impractical!" as a good reason to remove player choice, as long as it gives sufficient advantages and disadvantages for all the choices.

But really this doesn't even matter, the largest part of the reason this choice exists is basically because people like options for their character and people consider dual wielding cool, therefore, it is a good option to include. It's a staple of the genre and I don't see "but its impractical!" as a good reason to remove player choice, as long as it gives sufficient advantages and disadvantages for all the choices.

 

By popular demand, we implement the 'silly hat'.

 

We're still contemplating two ways:

 

1) You can put on the hat instead of a helmet but you'll die in one hit. You will be happy about this option if you're a real r0leplay0r!

 

2) We make the silly hat just as strong as a normal helmet. Nobody should be penalized for their choice of equipment/ style!

If we think about it, there are more or less 4 basic forms of melee weapon usage, and I do think they all have slightly different role to each other enough to justify their existance:

 

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

 

But really this doesn't even matter, the largest part of the reason this choice exists is basically because people like options for their character and people consider dual wielding cool, therefore, it is a good option to include. It's a staple of the genre and I don't see "but its impractical!" as a good reason to remove player choice, as long as it gives sufficient advantages and disadvantages for all the choices.

 

Personaly i want defence/Ofence to be a much deeper than just one stat ala D&D, you do get hit or you dont.

Where the 4 weapons styles can have more that hi damage/defence.

 

Each weapon type having diferent stats and properties. for example:

A towe shild is big and heavy, if they get flanked the have penaliers to defence from the flanked side, a large shild or medium becasue they are smaller and lighter dont suffer from this. the end result could be something like this. With rating form 1-100 in each area just to give a number that has no meening.

Fighter 1 Mace and Small shield- weapon speed 2 secs. Crushing bonus 50, Block 30, Perry 10, Dodge 15.

Fighter 2 Mace and Medium Shield- weapon speed 2 secs. crushing bonus 50, block 50, perry 10, dodge 5.

Fighter 3 mace and Tower shield- weapon speed 2 secs. Crushing Bonus 50, Block 80, perry 0, dodge 0. Flat Foted (if you are flanked, you resive a 0 block from the flanking oponent)

 

The same way we cann add properties to each tipe of weapons, For example:

A flail its all offence with no perry, block, dodge, and high block daamge (to stamina), and high crush damage, (damage stoped by the armor).

A sword, has high presition damage, with good dodge and perry.

an so on with axes, maces, hamers, Stafs, Daggers, etc.

 

with stats like Weapons speed, Weapon range, arch (can a swing cleave trogh more that one target with a swing like a 2H gratesword can hit 2 targats in front of him?), perry, dodge, Block, and what ever else it feels right.

But really this doesn't even matter, the largest part of the reason this choice exists is basically because people like options for their character and people consider dual wielding cool, therefore, it is a good option to include. It's a staple of the genre and I don't see "but its impractical!" as a good reason to remove player choice, as long as it gives sufficient advantages and disadvantages for all the choices.

 

By popular demand, we implement the 'silly hat'.

 

We're still contemplating two ways:

 

1) You can put on the hat instead of a helmet but you'll die in one hit. You will be happy about this option if you're a real r0leplay0r!

 

2) We make the silly hat just as strong as a normal helmet. Nobody should be penalized for their choice of equipment/ style!

 

One, Despite the fact that DW is not for Armies, and it was mostly used Duelists and other figures in history. its a Real fighting style, abut lets go to popular demand and the silly hat.

 

The silly hat can be an valid option, Just like the Chainmail Vikini.

The silly hat enrages Opnents, they want to take it off you so it makes their atacks predictable to the head and to the Hat itself, but because of the hat shape its hard to actualy land blows to it. and because the attacks are predictable it becames easily exitable and couteratacable.

 

Now the because of this the Silly hat just adds you no Damage Reduction, but a bonus to lets say 20% dodge, 15% Ripose, and 10% change target enter in rage when fighting you.

 

Seee, now the silly hat is a valid option for a fighting rogue.

 

Same with A Chain mail Vikini, Think outside the box with an open mind, The Chain mail Vikini adds no Damage Recuction, But it adds To Sexines of 100, Male targets fighting you have a chance to be charmed by the sexy warrior just like magic. female oponents have a chance to enter in rage about that Beoch over there showing skin. And other Crazy stuff.

 

Still. Personly i love Super Skimpy armors in my factacy games, i have 30 years (and despite my wife not liking it i still love them) and i have lived with them my hole life. The conan poster and the half naked sonja is how i like my fantacy.

I wouldnt implement Dual Wielding at all.

I hope there's none.

But really this doesn't even matter, the largest part of the reason this choice exists is basically because people like options for their character and people consider dual wielding cool, therefore, it is a good option to include. It's a staple of the genre and I don't see "but its impractical!" as a good reason to remove player choice, as long as it gives sufficient advantages and disadvantages for all the choices.

 

By popular demand, we implement the 'silly hat'.

 

We're still contemplating two ways:

 

1) You can put on the hat instead of a helmet but you'll die in one hit. You will be happy about this option if you're a real r0leplay0r!

 

2) We make the silly hat just as strong as a normal helmet. Nobody should be penalized for their choice of equipment/ style!

 

Perhaps you aught to go and play Mount and Blade, I think the fact that there is no magic or people with larger than life abilities in it would probably be more to your tastes than this.

 

Other than that, despite again missing the point that silly hats aren't a fantasy archetype and aren't a gameplay choice, the answer option 1, I'm sure that silly hats exist somewhere in the world of project eternity, but should you wear one indeed it would offer no protection. Giving the player choice does not mean all the choices the player can make are good ones, or that all choices should be easy. Being a master of combat while dual wielding is harder than the other options and requires more investment of skills/abilities/attributes, being a master of combat while wearing a silly hat is also more difficult than wearing a helmet, doesn't mean the player shouldn't be able to do it.

Perhaps you aught to go and play Mount and Blade, I think the fact that there is no magic or people with larger than life abilities in it would probably be more to your tastes than this.

 

Another iteration of the popular 'you don't agree with me, therefore this game is not for you!' trope.

 

Well played sir [troll], well played!

Perhaps you aught to go and play Mount and Blade, I think the fact that there is no magic or people with larger than life abilities in it would probably be more to your tastes than this.

 

Another iteration of the popular 'you don't agree with me, therefore this game is not for you!' trope.

 

Well played sir [troll], well played!

 

Hardly, more to the point that you disagree with/want removed design principles from the games that this game is very overtly a direct spiritual successor to, to the point of that being THE selling point of it. To me, that says that you probably aught to be looking elsewhere for the kind of game you are looking for.

 

Also I'm not sure you have quite got the idea of what exactly a troll is, I certainly disagree with you and am willing to debate those points, but I'm not in any way trying to wind you up for my own amusement. Generally trolling doesn't entail recommending an alternative which matches the preferences you keep on talking about or giving detailed explanations of why they disagree with you.

 

Anyway

 

I was going to say something about weapon speed - I actually strongly dislike the idea of inherant weapon speeds, its always seemed articial. If you are going to have different weapon speeds, it should be calculated by using the weight of the weapon and the strength of the character. If weapon speed is inherant to the weapon you end up with weird scenarios where a frail wizard can swing a hammer as quickly a musclebound barbarian. The 3rd edition system is passable as the fightery classes end up with more attacks/round than the less melee orientated ones, but still a gnome wizard with 6 strength can swing a broadsword at the same speed as a half orc barbarian with 20. But as you can put it down to the barbarian swinging at the speed but more accuratly, I can live with that.

 

But yes, I definitly dislike inbuilt weapon speeds.

Honestly I voted for both "weapons can be same size" and "weapons don't have to be same type" but I don't need them to get to insane levels. I don't need or want to have a greataxe in one hand and a halberd in another. Still if they are within some form of reason then why not? Why not have someone have an axe in one hand to cut and a sword in his other hand to stab? Especially if the character fits. The example I gave could be for a character with low intelligence or who didn't grow up in a city so he just did what sounded smart to him.

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.

Edited December 14, 2012 by FlintlockJazz