Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Two weapon style (dual wield)

weapon dual wield rouge fighter

  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

Poll: dual weapon options you prefer? (144 member(s) have cast votes)

what kind of dual weapon/two weapon fighting style you prefer in game?

  1. off hand weapons should be smaller in size (long sword-dagger style) (39 votes [27.08%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.08%

  2. off hand weapons can be same size (long sword-long sword style) (83 votes [57.64%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 57.64%

  3. doesn't matter/don't care (22 votes [15.28%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.28%

Should off hand weapon has to be same type of weapon?

  1. yes (sword-sword or axe-axe etc.) (6 votes [4.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.17%

  2. no (sword-axe ; axe-dagger ; staff-dagger ; sword-flail etc.) (116 votes [80.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 80.56%

  3. doesn't matter/don't care (22 votes [15.28%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.28%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21
Jasede

Jasede

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 323 posts
  • Location:Glorious Codexistan
I hope there's none.

#22
Alexjh

Alexjh

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 294 posts
  • Location:Northants, UK
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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.

#23
Sacred_Path

Sacred_Path

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1328 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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!

#24
Alexjh

Alexjh

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 294 posts
  • Location:Northants, UK
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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.

#25
80Maxwell08

80Maxwell08

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.

#26
FlintlockJazz

FlintlockJazz

    White Rabbit of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1857 posts
  • Location:Pocket Domain in the Outer Astral Plane
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

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 by FlintlockJazz, 14 December 2012 - 01:15 PM.

  • PrimeJunta likes this

#27
Alexjh

Alexjh

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 294 posts
  • Location:Northants, UK
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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.

#28
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7202 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.
  • Adhin and KaineParker like this

#29
KaineParker

KaineParker

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2738 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

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.

#30
PrimeJunta

PrimeJunta

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4900 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

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.

#31
Sacred_Path

Sacred_Path

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1328 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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 [video] 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.

#32
Jojobobo

Jojobobo

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1129 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
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.

#33
Diagoras

Diagoras

    Gunsage of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 198 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
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.

#34
Wulfic

Wulfic

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 57 posts
1:24



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 by Wulfic, 15 December 2012 - 05:38 AM.


#35
JOG

JOG

    Knave of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 127 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.

#36
Dream

Dream

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 607 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer

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 ****.

#37
Pipyui

Pipyui

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 371 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.

#38
Aldereth

Aldereth

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 141 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.

#39
Tamerlane

Tamerlane

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1116 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
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.

#40
PrimeJunta

PrimeJunta

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4900 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

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.
  • Pipyui and Lephys like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: weapon, dual, wield, rouge, fighter

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users