Two weapon style (dual wield)

[Wulfic]

I dont know bout Karkarov but I fought a dragon. The easiest way to kill such is with a long spear or halberd and targeting the belly as it swoops down on ya. You need a shield also to protect urself from fire. The best way to kill a dragon though is with harpoons. You have to think a strategy how to catch such a beast. THe easiest way is to circle it as it is asleep. Then you just shoot from all sides and hold the lines allowing someone to strike his heart with a long spear. Dream If you want to kill a dragon just visit the lodge of the dragon hunters up in Canada they will show you some of the beasts.

[Tamerlane]

I dont know bout Karkarov but I fought a dragon. The easiest way to kill such is with a long spear or halberd and targeting the belly as it swoops down on ya. You need a shield also to protect urself from fire. The best way to kill a dragon though is with harpoons. You have to think a strategy how to catch such a beast. THe easiest way is to circle it as it is asleep. Then you just shoot from all sides and hold the lines allowing someone to strike his heart with a long spear. Dream If you want to kill a dragon just visit the lodge of the dragon hunters up in Canada they will show you some of the beasts.

Ooh, I should show you some pictures of the frost wyrm my dad trapped last year in northern Saskatchewan. He was just trying to clean out some beavers from a slough near my parents' place, and bam! Mother****ing frost wyrm!

[Pipyui]

Ooh, I should show you some pictures of the frost wyrm my dad trapped last year in northern Saskatchewan. He was just trying to clean out some beavers from a slough near my parents' place, and bam! Mother****ing frost wyrm!

 

Ugh, I hate those buggers. They're not good eating, but if you leave them alone they'll devour all game in the area. With such voracious appetites, why can't they ever inhabit someplace more urban, meat-populated, and out of my hair? Mother****ing frost wyrms!

 

 

I dont know bout Karkarov but I fought a dragon. The easiest way to kill such is with a long spear or halberd and targeting the belly as it swoops down on ya. You need a shield also to protect urself from fire. The best way to kill a dragon though is with harpoons. You have to think a strategy how to catch such a beast. THe easiest way is to circle it as it is asleep. Then you just shoot from all sides and hold the lines allowing someone to strike his heart with a long spear. Dream If you want to kill a dragon just visit the lodge of the dragon hunters up in Canada they will show you some of the beasts.

 

Better luck than I've had, most times I've gone hunting dragon, the only meat I'd scramble back with is half my party - medium well.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Pipyui

[Lephys]

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!".

 

Oh, definitely. The first/simplest thing that came to mind was an active skill. Whereas, if you had a short sword, you would have a different skill (or the very same type of Disarm or Defense Breach skill would provide a different effect, as a short sword would obviously not hook the top of a shield to forcibly lower it.)

 

 

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.

 

I get where you're coming from, but I hate to tell you... medieval armies didn't all line up for 1-on-1 duals or little squad-based skirmishes, and they trained accordingly. My history buff friend does a lot of re-enactment type fighting, and studying the way they did it. He was showing me how to use a 2-handed sword, and a sword-and-shield, and a sword and axe (even a short spear and an axe) to fight in the midst of a battle. Although, that's a whole different story all-together. I mean, once the line (between all your allies and all those foes) breaks, you pretty much just hope 3 foes within your vicinity don't all kill their engagers at the same time and turn toward you.

 

It's all still viable, in one way or another, though. It's just like different martial arts styles. One might involve almost nothing but kicking, and you may think "there are situations in which you'd want to just use your hands instead." But, you'd be surprised. These people don't just develop entire fighting techniques because they like using their feet, or because they like holding a weapon in each hand.

 

Also, I understand what you mean by different scenarios, like fighting trolls, or a bear, or even a dragon. But, I don't think ANY set of weaponry or fighting style doesn't lose effectiveness against a non-human or a dragon. I don't think it's so much lost effectiveness as it is a different bracket of effectiveness. I mean, you're fighting something that isn't capable of the exact same movements that you are, and it's using a much more feral strategy. Not to mention the strength difference.

 

But, just because you can't pull a bear's shield down or feign attacks to deflect its blade arm doesn't mean that dual weapons are inherently less effective against it. Also, I don't see how 2 short swords are any less effective versus heavy armor with a big shield than one short sword is (sort of part of the dragon/bear point, as well). I would think it wold be a lot easier to catch a fully-plated-out enemy in the armor joints with 2 daggers than it would be to do so with a greatsword, for example. Sure, the greatsword may do more damage directly against the armor and shield, as it swings with more force, but that's the tradeoff. Doesn't make the twin daggers any less viable.

 

I almost see the difference between dual weapons and a single weapon as equal to the difference between different weapon types (short spears/staves, daggers, mauls, flails, etc.)

[Tamerlane]

Ugh, I hate those buggers. They're not good eating, but if you leave them alone they'll devour all game in the area. With such voracious appetites, why can't they ever inhabit someplace more urban, meat-populated, and out of my hair? Mother****ing frost wyrms!

Oh sure, they taste like hell, but they've got historic merit, y'know? Only reason we explored half the country was because frost wyrm hides made such fashionable hats across the Atlantic for a couple centuries.

 

And it's not like they flood roads like beavers. Stupid rodents.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

First up, the use of dual wielding is `realistic` even in a purely western context: for example, the Florentine style using a broadsword and a main-gauche (I think that is the correct term) mostly for defence. I think this style actually fits PE given that it emerged in the late middle ages/renaissance period. Using two weapons is difficult, but far from impossible: I'd make it like that in game - you need to dedicate more feats/perks/ability points/whatever towards it to make it effective than more conventional close combat styles, but after that effort is put in it becomes very effective against those styles (as it is exotic and harder to predict) but remains vulnerable to longer-distance attacks like polearms or projectiles.

 

Secondly, while I would agree that more excessive styles of dual wielding, such as two longswords, are unrealistic, what's important is that they are not implausible. I can see someone use two longswords and not know that that's impossible - particularly when both magic and the Charles Atlas Superpower that hero-types tend to possess are bought into play. Willing Suspension of Disbelief is what matters, not realism: and when the fireballs are flying, the chappy doing a Miyamoto Musashi impression doesn't seem to present a problem.

[Nihatek]

I got two points here:

 

First question - answer to this lies in the strength of character - its pretty hard to swing with two long swords - its even harder then to swing consistently with two-hand swords - so to fully use that there should be some requirements and also reductions (lower chance to hit if your strenght is on the edge of base)

 

Second question - example used there - staff-dagger is just too bad. But why limit - there are many useful combinations that brings various effect (eg. flail can just let you expose your opponent more), light trident + net - why not - you got another tactical element. (in turn base it will be great)

[ReyVagabond]

I still mantain my own expirience with DW its posible is not that hard and the limititations of weight and what ever you think its a limitations are removed by the fact that this is game, a fantastic tale in a world where souls are reborn time after time where our heroes may axceed the limitations of a human being.

I remember many times after some kendo training with some friends and my master to grab some toy swords light as paper when compared with real swords, and practice some free for all fun, my instructor and me usualy DW, and its was a blast the freedom to strike from anywhere to any place and the fact we didnt hurt each other (much).

 

Back into the game, Fighting shoud be deep and DW needs to be an option.

The implementations its all about how the combat is consived. for example. if the combat has weapon speed with a strengh check, it could lead to exceeding the weapon check could recibe a bonus to the weapon speed. etc.

A DW could be you sum of the weapons speeds and then divede it by 2 or 2/3 or any number that has a smart reation of how ofter you could attack with any of the two weapons any given time.

 

Now deeper in the Melee Fighting system they could add a Stamina fueled no cooldown activate abilyties where your next move has X property. and that skill bar could be something like GW2 skilbar where depending on What weapon you are using it changes.

 

Lets say you have depending on your equiped weapon 4 skills, for each weapon equiped or 8 for a 2h weapon with that in mind, a sword and shield could have 8 diferent active skills diferent from Sword and sword, etc.

and for Magical Enchantments, If a 1h weapons has 2, and Shild has 2, a 2h weapons should have 4.

 

now as Example how the the system could work.

 

Warrior 1 has Mace and shield, A weapon speed of 3 that means that he can create a oportunity to attack (even dragons and bears) every 3 secods.

So in standard fight just swinging the weapon he could atack every 3 secods and has 8 skills at his disposal, those 8 skills could be, powerblows, feints, hilt atacks, shield bashes, a total defence block, etc. standard stuff.

(for any one wandering, if the skills dont have cooldwon what stops me from spaming, anweser nothing exept that with no stamina you should be dead, its all part of my other post of a stamina centric game).

 

Berzerker 1 has an Axe and Sword, A weapon speed of (3+3)/2= 3, Every 3 secods he can create a oportunity to attack witch one of his two weapons. His active skills could be server leg to criple, axe hook to try to remove the shiled defence from the targer. relentles furry of blows, lowering the "weapon speed" and placing a penalny to the chace to hit. etc.

 

And so on and on with any weapon combination. like Trident and net, with special net skills like grab the leg for a knowdown, do a deep stab with the trident that can hit some one behind the first target. what ever feels natural.

 

what do you guys feel?

[PrimeJunta]

I feel that it would be a good deal of work to properly implement a dual-wielding system, but it could contribute greatly to the depth and tactical options in the game.

 

And I still don't like the simple "hit twice as often with penalties" mechanic that we usually end up with. I'd rather not see it in at all.

 

Put another way, if it's not worth doing well, it's not worth doing at all.

[ReyVagabond]

Im with you with the hole more strike faster because im using 2 weapons is not the best idea, ill stick to my example above, but.

 

1- DW should have no penalty what so ever, because you are resigning the other styles. With no penalies you cant make it overpower because it has no downside. to compensate its awesomenes!

 

2- it has to be done well but in consept is not that hard to do it well, we here have stated some groundrules to do so, if its done it should be integrated to combat that you cant do combat without doing it.

 

For example. I hate DA2, they removed DW from the game, they simplified the system so each class has only a hadfull of options. and its awfull.

GW2 made a system where DW is integrated to the consept of the avalible skills in the game depending of what weapons is using what slot, and i think a system like that could be a start for this game.

For example in this game it could be cool to have ambydextery. so i can be a left handed warrior at last!

[Lephys]

^ Agreed, vigorously. If you're going to say "We allowed you to equip two weapons instead of just one!" and call it a day, then don't do it. That's not implementing two-weapon fighting. It's implementing two-weapon equipping. That's almost like putting in "ranged combat" by just having your character swing his sword (with accompanying melee-range animations) while an enemy 20 meters away loses HP. You didn't really implement ranged combat. You merely implemented weapon range. 8P

[Atreides]

On a tangent I was thinking how the game could reflect the range advantage of long weapons like spears. Enemies tend to attack less because it's harder to get within attack range without being in harms way - translates to slowed attacks against long weapons.

 

Then I thought it'd be really funny for an uber late-game party in full plate to get bogged down in a swamp and ambushed. The bandits would cast oil slick, stinking cloud to further immobilize them, followed by a fireball that would light up the oil and methane for a huge explosion. If the party wasn't already cooked in their plate mail, a mobile lightly armoured group with reach advantage from spears follow up on the attack.

[Valorian]

Attacking faster with a small accuracy/damage/penetration penalty which depends on the size of the weapons and feats you have. Penalties would be higher with larger weapons.

 

For instance, if you use a single dagger you'd attack every 2,5 seconds, with 2 daggers - every 1,5 second. With a single long sword every 3,5 seconds, 2 long swords - every 2,5 seconds etc.

[Adhin]

I think in general a good way to handle it would be to have abilities require a weapon be in the main hand or off hand, depending on the abilities. Have some abilities require 2 hands, some require a shield, so on, and so on. Would also be nice to have dual-wield only attacks that use both in a heavy attack or some kind, or a quick chain of attacks using both weapons. I could see a rapid-strike like move be used for everything and, in the case of dual wielding, actually increase number of attacks.

 

That said for the base 'auto' attack, not just skills to use, I think is kind of where peoples arguments been back and forth on. That being, everyone's mostly been arguing the want for more tactical options and the like which are use abilities, but comparing it against DnD's base auto-attack function which are 2 very different beasts. So for base, auto attack that's a bit more awkward I guess. I do kind of like the idea of a passive parry system involved and DW giving a good base passive bonus to that so you would ultimately end up with more attacks but the extra attacks would end up being via the parry setup.

 

Generally the character I intend to dual wield is my Barbarian, Kurn. He dual wields Shorties, Scimitar or longswords (of the 1h variaty), or if given the option some large hiltless cleaver like weapon. He's brutal with them, but in DnD, barbs get DR as a natural thing. He cares less about taking damage as hes capable of literally absorbing it, wares medium armor and just uses his heft to cleave things to pieces. He's fast and brutal basically.

 

In the end I think they need to come at it from 2 perspectives, one being how to figure out the auto-attack and then special use abilities based off weapon styles. And frankly I'd like a lot of those styles to not require DW or 2H. Good example of what I mean is Power Attack from DnD, it doesn't matter what your using you can always just get more reckless and brutal with your attacks. Weather that's a shield and sword or 2h or DW'ing. I'd like to see more things like that, and have them be a bit more universal, the rapid attacks thing could easily be used for any weapon and just have 1h, dw, or 2h determine total number of attacks in the chain.

 

As for auto attack that's... an odd one. Personally I think, in general, DW should do 50% more dmg then SnB, and 2H should do double. I've always prefered Dual Wielding to be the middle ground (for auto-attack, not counting special moves and tactical use stuff). Instead of making off hand crap, bring both down by 25%, don't screw with your chance to hit. Allow 2-handed to do twice the damage and let shields be more defensive (for auto attack purposes). Special attacks make up the difference beyond that. That way, with out ANY special stuff taken into consideration, each has its own basic roll for just basic damage output with out dual wielding overshadowing everything. And if they do a parry thing that can be the middle ground on defense or whatever.

 

Anyway, more options and those options not being to blindly specific but change depending on what weapons your using. Though there should still be some special abilities that require 1h, a shield or dual wielding, or a single weapon and an empty off hand (best for grappling).

[Tsuga C]

One medium, one small or two small weapons is fine, but any of that insipid "monkeygrip" crap will be a blight on the game. Unless you're playing a race that's 8' tall, dual wielding hand-and-a-half swords should be totally out of the question.

[JOG]

I still think that there should be two dual wield variants:

 

One where dual wielding adds a considerable feint bonus to hit chance rather than an extra attack, of course the opponent must be smart and calm enough to fall for such finesse.

 

The other a combat style that requires a lot of training, open only to the most dedicated warriors, and not to rogues who ought to be easily distracted by wine, women and song.

Edited December 20, 2012 by JOG

[Jarmo]

I'd allow pretty much everything, including fighting with two halberds or whatever.

 

Higher strength requirements for the offhand weapon, with attack and damage penalties even if those are met.

Attack and damage penalties for the main weapon also, if the requirements are not met.

 

In normal mode, the second hand weapon is used for feints and blocking, not as effectively as a shield.

An extra attack with second weapon.. maybe once per every 3 normal attacks with the main weapon.

 

Aggressive mode, where there are more attacks but no defense bonuses for the second weapon.

 

Basically.. 2 weapons where the offhand is light, is slightly worse in defense than weapon and shield, with slightly better offense.

(Shield is basically a second blunt weapon (particularly when it's a buckler) just very much defense oriented.)

[Tsuga C]

I'd allow pretty much everything, including fighting with two halberds or whatever.

 

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Polearms are a minimum of 8' long so you'd have zero leverage with which to make any sort of crossing movements. Were you ambidextrous you could theoretically thrust with two polearms, but you'd never have the leverage to do any sort of crossing/slashing movements. Besides, they're so long that each would frequently be getting in the way of the other.

[Adhin]

Yeah dual halberds is a bit crazy unless your 8-9 feet fall. Dual bastards or katanas I can understand (hell 2 katanas has been done often enough in history). 2 Claymores is stretching it not due to the weight but due to the length, after awhile it just gets to a point where the maneuverability starts to kill it. I mean a normal 1h'er is like 3 pounds, a 2h'er is about 4-5. It's not a massive difference and the real killer is the length.

 

That said I dislike it when games forcibly disallow stuff in such a finite broach term it starts to kill it for monster types. NWN had that issue to some extent, took some modding to deal with, and a lot of that was also animation issues. Basically a giant shouldn't have issues using a halberd as a single handed weapon with length as an issue. Actually lets say Ogre, giants tend to be taller then 8-9 feet. They'd be using a tree trunk at that point. Either way base game, from the players stand point, we wont be playing character/races big enough to handle that.

 

As to my jumbled mess of non-sense in my previous post, I was meaning dual wield should just get a 50% speed increase. They aren't using 'turns' like in past games. Personally I think a single attack a second fits just fine for this kind of game and making it 1.5 attacks per second while dual wielding would not be as silly as 'double the attacks!' but still allow it to hit the middle ground in dmg for sake of auto attacks, special abilities not withstanding.

[Jarmo]

I'd allow pretty much everything, including fighting with two halberds or whatever.

 

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Polearms are a minimum of 8' long so you'd have zero leverage with which to make any sort of crossing movements.

 

Actually Halberd would be about 5 feet and up. And you wouldn't need to grab from the very end.

But that's not the point. I can grab the end of a 9 feet pole on one hand and whack or thrust with the other end. I can do the same with two poles if they're not too heavy.

Halberd is heavier so (much) more strength would be required. I can't see it'd be terribly effective way of fighting, but a possible one.

Maybe even somewhat useful style for someone with magically enhanced strength.

 

Now I can understand if making animations for something like 2 polearms style isn't on top of anybodys priority list, so if it doesn't make the cut, I wont cry over it.

[Farbautisonn]

Considering that I have actually swung a friggen claymore and that Im not a tiny guy, dualwielding massive weapons really makes zero tactical sense. You would be out of breath in seconds, not minutes and a pitched battle would be right out of the question for any number of reasons.

 

A sword and a kidney dagger or a small axe, Two shortswords at the most. Its not enough that you can flail them haphazardly around in the air for 20 seconds. You have to be able to use them precisely and with a surplus of stamina for a considerable time.

 

Personally I really dont care if people want to dualwield obscene weapons like dai katanas or zweihander flamberges but it annoys me to the point of breaking "suspension of disbelief" when I see it in an RPG. If I could evade a guy dual wielding twohanders I would be able to walk up and break his neck after 2 minutes of flailing because the guy would have collapsed from exhaustion from both the flailing and the weight of his armour. I would say "leave it to the mod squad" and then not concern myself with it.

 

Dualwielding small axes (Danish axes) or smallswords, no problem. Katanas and perhaps even Rapiers, ok. Zweihander flamberges and claymores? Id laugh, run 100 yards then turn and poke the guys guts out with a spoon.

[Failion]

You have to suspend belief when putting anything in a video a game especially a fantasy one. it is simply impossible to make a melee combat fighting simulator simply because you can't mimic the biological motions, intelligence, weight, momentum, muscle fibers, field of vision etc etc etc all these factors that are behind real life fighting. OKAY now that is settled... What will be ideal when it comes to dual wielding in a fantasy rpg developed by obsidian entertainment. I definately wouldn't mind seeing things like giants dual wielding broad swords and magical fighters that are lighting fast spectacles or realistic mundane dual wield fighters. The more variety the better.

[Farbautisonn]

You have to suspend belief when putting anything in a video a game especially a fantasy one. it is simply impossible to make a melee combat fighting simulator simply because you can't mimic the biological motions, intelligence, weight, momentum, muscle fibers, field of vision etc etc etc all these factors that are behind real life fighting. OKAY now that is settled... What will be ideal when it comes to dual wielding in a fantasy rpg developed by obsidian entertainment. I definately wouldn't mind seeing things like giants dual wielding broad swords and magical fighters that are lighting fast spectacles or realistic mundane dual wield fighters. The more variety the better.

 

You need to brush up on the term "Suspension of disbelief". I have played fantasy games for more than 20 years both PnP and CRPG. I can suspend my disbelief it somewhat makes sense to do so in the setting. If I was a Baatezu as a class I wouldnt have too many problems with dualwielding claymores. Your average elf in full plate with a backpack, mule and standing within 1½ yards of his allies flailing 2 claymores like they were bamboo sticks? Not ****ing happening ever.

 

Vararity has to make "in setting" sense or you end up having pixies comming at you in mithrill plate wielding sentient zweihanders and throwing meteor shower spells at lvl 23.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[Tsuga C]

You have to suspend belief..

 

But only to a limited extent. For the sake of the game I can accept that elves and frostband swords exist, but basic physics must still be accounted for even in a fantasy setting. My credulity is easily strained and puerile, anime-like combat is a deal killer for me. Farbautisonn above summed things up nicely, so I won't bother belaboring the point any further.

[Failion]

You have to suspend belief when putting anything in a video a game especially a fantasy one. it is simply impossible to make a melee combat fighting simulator simply because you can't mimic the biological motions, intelligence, weight, momentum, muscle fibers, field of vision etc etc etc all these factors that are behind real life fighting. OKAY now that is settled... What will be ideal when it comes to dual wielding in a fantasy rpg developed by obsidian entertainment. I definately wouldn't mind seeing things like giants dual wielding broad swords and magical fighters that are lighting fast spectacles or realistic mundane dual wield fighters. The more variety the better.

 

You need to brush up on the term "Suspension of disbelief". I have played fantasy games for more than 20 years both PnP and CRPG. I can suspend my disbelief it somewhat makes sense to do so in the setting. If I was a Baatezu as a class I wouldnt have too many problems with dualwielding claymores. Your average elf in full plate with a backpack, mule and standing within 1½ yards of his allies flailing 2 claymores like they were bamboo sticks? Not ****ing happening ever.

 

Vararity has to make "in setting" sense or you end up having pixies comming at you in mithrill plate wielding sentient zweihanders and throwing meteor shower spells at lvl 23.

You have to suspend belief..

 

But only to a limited extent. For the sake of the game I can accept that elves and frostband swords exist, but basic physics must still be accounted for even in a fantasy setting. My credulity is easily strained and puerile, anime-like combat is a deal killer for me. Farbautisonn above summed things up nicely, so I won't bother belaboring the point any further.

 

I really don't see how it is a deal breaker. This is a high fantasy setting. Developers can go crazy on the power of souls if they want to. So beings such as Fairys can use their soul power to telekentically dual wield claymores or elves can use their arms with the help of their soul power to wield them just fine. They can make soul power more of a factor then race. Personally I'm sick of everything having to somehow follow the cliche influences and rules of tolkien/dnd when it comes to fantasy rpgs.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Failion