Two weapon style (dual wield)

[AGX-17]

Christ, how the hell did you people start this "strong women in gaming" and, "well, I don't want to sound sexist, but biologically speaking..." bull**** anyway?

 

When Failion started talking about JRPG waifs brandishing 10x their body weight as being examples of "strong women" in gaming (in the sexism in video game communities sense,) and accusing of sexism anyone of calling out the fallacious physics of that as BS. These are games where they don't even bother to try to justify these things by saying "it's a magic axe, light as a feather," or "a wizard did it."

 

Suspension of disbelief can only go so far. When you have a Japanese schoolgirl running around with a sword bigger than a car, you've overdone it. And it's not even uncommon, either.

Edited December 21, 2012 by AGX-17

[NerdBoner]

dual wielding like rapier/dagger combo is a good thing and even has a historical basis (those french ****ers, names i can't remember)...

 

but honestly, i'd prefer a viable single weapon, no shield style...like an agile duelist or an off hand protection spell, spiked gauntlet or spiked chain or smoke bomb etc.... primarily because i hate shields (usually look stupid as hell and in a world with magic, what's the point?) and imagine dragging one around on my back for weeks on end would be more tedious than its worth. Anything larger than a buckler is retarded for adventuring.

[Adhin]

There are a lot of historical examples of dual wielding (some legendary samurai and romans arena stuff to name some) the Rapier and 'Parrying Dagger' isn't one I'd consider proper dual wielding. It's the 'dagger' is literally just a buckler replacement. Granted you can still stab a guy with it but its primary purpose, its whole existence is based around parrying so you can riposte with the rapier.

 

Now granted a sword/dagger combo like that should be allowed and make sense, though it's more likely you'd hold a dagger/knife differently then a parrying dagger (most fighting styles do anyway). The few that don't use a dagger or knife like you use a gladious, mostly just gut stabbing. So grapple and stab in the gut (or shield and stab in gut). As for 'whats the point' of a shield with magic? Same reason a for a sword I guess? Magic means you can enchant that shield, which in turn can make that shield exceptionally useful against magic.

 

I think they should make a bunch of 'styles' like there defensive stance thing that're universal to what your doing. Anyone can be more defensive regardless of what weapon there using or use a style, with any weapon type or combination that's more defensive, more aggressive, more whatever. Add some special moves that're weapon dependent (regardless of 'style'), set dual wielding to be halfway between single weapon vs 2 handed weapons. I'd also say they should have special moves that require the off hand to be open. That being 2-handed weapons, a single weapon and no shield, and not dual-wielding, to allow for grapple like specials or whatever.

 

Basically I'd rather they do more general stuff and setup systems for it then be to awkwardly rigid with things, I don't need 5 types of defensive stance skills, one for each type of 'style'.. just do 1 and let me equip whatever I want. I can use my imagination for how im utilizing that. Also any kind of finesse like skill should really be allowed for more then just small weapons. You can finesse a spear or an axe just as much as you can a short sword, it's just a matter of grip and maneuvering.

[TMTVL]

Maybe we'll get dirk and targe... A shield with a big spike counts as weapon, right?

 

Or maybe I could charge a garrison armed with only the spike on my helmet.

[Dream]

The very premise for the PS setting is that most everyone of importance in Sigil are devils and demon, demigods or gods. Its on planes that are created by gods or deity level creatures. Pit fiends of 800 plus kilogrammes that wild blades and magic that is next to unheard of in the prime material plane. The very setting dictates that level of power and "realism". You dont pit a gnoll against a pit fiend, give him a deity level weapon and then expect him to beat a pitfiend. Thats not a lucky d20 roll. Thats a lucky d100 roll.

Pretty sure Annah was just a tiefling street rat. Also for a big bit of the game you were doing battle with bandits and thugs that could give you a run for your money.

 

You have people who draw 18 wheelers with their teeth, chinese contortionists, trickshots, etc. You dont have anyone that combines them. Its acceptable to me because you might excell in one area, two perhaps, but not three. Hawkins is a sterling theorhetical scientist, but i dont think he would make the NFL as a Quarterback. If you excell to genious or top end elite status in a field, you generally do so at the cost of others. I rather like that rule. Makes sense to me that you dont become an olympic sprinter by casually jogging around the block every evening.

And that has what to do with soul powers that give select individuals (like the PC) superhuman abilities? Unless you're telling me mr 18 wheeler got himself a super strength soul and Hawkins got a physics soul.

 

 

Give me your definition of "Super" kthnks la~. I dont mind "Super" as long as it doesnt cross the boundary into downright ridiculous and contradictory. And flailing two zweihanders next to your allies in cramped spaces or in the vicinity of VIPs without them getting hurt or killed is. Being able to wield them whilst wearing heavy armour, plate, or backpacks and weighing in at only 50 kilogramme is. The ingame logic dicatates that your solid matter swords hurt your foe, yet passes straight through friends? That seems to clash with the ingame setting logic. Hard. But Im sure you have plenty of examples from games and litterature and perhaps even RL where precisely that happens.

Actually I was just gonna go with "it's a video game." I have no real life examples of people carrying 5 suits of plate and 10 different swords in their backpacks either and I'm pretty sure that ****s with physics too (but you know, that wasn't a staple of the IE games either... oh wait).

 

Besides, the multitude of spells and options in BG was true to the Forgotten Realms lore and insetting logic. Having 18 plus strenght means you look rather beefed up. Even as a woman. That the graphics dont represent that is primarily because the game mecanics dont allow it. An umber hulk has 2 strenght and 25 dex... never.

If you're actually expecting the character models in P:E to change one iota as their primary attributes shift I'm gonna tell you straight up you're going to be thoroughly disappointed. The graphics don't represent it not because the mechanics don't allow it but because people don't want to run around looking like a brick **** house just because they rolled fighter.

 

I suspect that after having been in a few dungeons with your twin zweihanders and full plate youd decide to... not.

In the game? I suspect there'd be no penalty for it else it would be kind of **** with the game since any light armor/small weapon characters would have a massive advantage.

 

Never used the guy

Never used that spell either.

Well I guess there's the solution. Just don't use the **** that apparently ****s with your overly sensitive sense of plausibility.

 

Not true actually, a suit of light plate will be lighter and easier to wear than mail or leather while providing a better defense, its why the invention of plate was such a game changer for warfare and everyone wanted a suit of the stuff, including spanish explorers such as the ever famous conquisitadors.

 

Yea, but the point is none of those would at all be viable when spelunking through dungeons and caves. You'd be better off throwing on your best Indiana Jones or Lara Croft outfit.

[AGX-17]

dual wielding like rapier/dagger combo is a good thing and even has a historical basis (those french ****ers, names i can't remember)...

 

but honestly, i'd prefer a viable single weapon, no shield style...like an agile duelist or an off hand protection spell, spiked gauntlet or spiked chain or smoke bomb etc.... primarily because i hate shields (usually look stupid as hell and in a world with magic, what's the point?) and imagine dragging one around on my back for weeks on end would be more tedious than its worth. Anything larger than a buckler is retarded for adventuring.

 

Not just France, Japan too. One badass mother****er going by the name of Miyamoto Musashi. http://en.wikipedia...._Niten_Ichi-ryū

 

He wasn't just an undefeated duelist, he was a veteran of several battles of the Sengoku/Warring States period, so he was no feeble rogue-like.

 

Note that Musashi was also an accomplished artist, calligrapher, writer, philosopher, zen buddhist and military strategist, among other things.

Here's one of his paintings.

 

So anyone who had objections to separating combat and non combat skills and giving them their own independent point pools (a subject of somewhat vigorous debate in several other threads,) can take a look at Musashi, and have fun tasting their feet.

 

Maybe we'll get dirk and targe... A shield with a big spike counts as weapon, right?

 

Or maybe I could charge a garrison armed with only the spike on my helmet.

 

No, a cowering-plate is not a weapon.

Edited December 21, 2012 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

The graphics don't represent it not because the mechanics don't allow it but because people don't want to run around looking like a brick **** house just because they rolled fighter.

So, if people don't want their characters to die, their willpower, alone, causes hitpoints/limited health to vanish from the game? That's weird... I always thought it was based on game mechanics that were hard-coded. Hmm... Ohhhh, I seee. You're saying that the mechanics really don't allow it. But then you're arguing the complete assumption that "No one wants to be forced to appear strong" just because they chose a certain class, even though the basis of appearance in question here was the specific strength value, and not the class.

 

Well I guess there's the solution. Just don't use the **** that apparently ****s with your overly sensitive sense of plausibility.

I wouldn't say that's "the" solution. I mean, if that's a valid way to deal with it, then you could just as easily not use anything in the game that didn't appeal to your overly tuned sense of implausibility. The Wagon of Plausibility is obviously going to ride along on a Suspension of Disbelief, and it's going to hit a few potholes and take a few jolts along the way. But, you either want it to hold together the whole ride through, or you don't care whether or not it completely falls apart. Why WOULDN'T you want things to make sense? Hell, even the breaking of realistic limitations for the sake of gaining a significant benefit in a fantasy environment is still adherent to sense. Not "It's a fantasy world... just don't even worry about trying to be coherent or make any sense at all. Really big strong guys aren't actually any stronger than ants. Ants can dual-wield trees. But big-strong guys can also dual-wield trees."

 

When everyone's spectacular, no one is spectacular.

 

Yea, but the point is none of those would at all be viable when spelunking through dungeons and caves. You'd be better off throwing on your best Indiana Jones or Lara Croft outfit.

 

Not if you live in a world in which the caves are filled with bandits/goblins/orcs/trollocs/trolls/dragons/magic/legends. It's a fantasy RPG cave, not a wine cellar.

[Dream]

So, if people don't want their characters to die, their willpower, alone, causes hitpoints/limited health to vanish from the game? That's weird... I always thought it was based on game mechanics that were hard-coded. Hmm... Ohhhh, I seee. You're saying that the mechanics really don't allow it. But then you're arguing the complete assumption that "No one wants to be forced to appear strong" just because they chose a certain class, even though the basis of appearance in question here was the specific strength value, and not the class.

 

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. The point was that a "realistic" 18+ str person (not to even mention someone in the 20's) would look like a walking mountain of meat and that's just not appealing to a lot of people (of both genders). The fighter comment was referencing the fact that there's pretty much no other class that requires a high str value so if strength was realistically portrayed then people's mindset might be "well I want to roll fighter but they look ugly compared to all the other classes "

 

Also its not really about being forced to appear strong, but about looking more like Brad Pitt or Edward Norton and less like Ronnie Coleman when it comes to what "strong" looks like.

 

I wouldn't say that's "the" solution. I mean, if that's a valid way to deal with it, then you could just as easily not use anything in the game that didn't appeal to your overly tuned sense of implausibility. The Wagon of Plausibility is obviously going to ride along on a Suspension of Disbelief, and it's going to hit a few potholes and take a few jolts along the way. But, you either want it to hold together the whole ride through, or you don't care whether or not it completely falls apart. Why WOULDN'T you want things to make sense? Hell, even the breaking of realistic limitations for the sake of gaining a significant benefit in a fantasy environment is still adherent to sense. Not "It's a fantasy world... just don't even worry about trying to be coherent or make any sense at all. Really big strong guys aren't actually any stronger than ants. Ants can dual-wield trees. But big-strong guys can also dual-wield trees."

 

When everyone's spectacular, no one is spectacular.

You kind of took a running leap down a teflon covered cliff side there. No one was talking about having the game take place in Limbo, but about not worrying about things like "well this doesn't make sense because of friendly fire!" when it came to big weapons.

 

Not if you live in a world in which the caves are filled with bandits/goblins/orcs/trollocs/trolls/dragons/magic/legends. It's a fantasy RPG cave, not a wine cellar.

Pretty sure Lara lived in a world full of crazy **** too, and those games were way more realistic than your standard fantasy RPG. The point is unless you have magical armor that weighs nothing you wouldn't be ale to explore caves in anything that offered any real protection; it just wouldn't work. That said if a game adhered so strictly to things like that it would probably be a pretty awful game (dungeon time... time to take off all my gear) which is why we shouldn't worry about things like "that swords too big to use around allies in tight spaces!" (and before you say it: no, this is not an endorsement of not worrying about the caves being filled with ants wielding tree trunks).

[TMTVL]

There's monks, they're dual wielding fists, feet, elbows, knees, shoulder and head.

 

Or maybe we could have dual-blade type weapons (which were generally pretty terrible in DnD).

[Jarmo]

Ooh, ooh, should one be able to dual wield a sword and a fist!?

[Adhin]

Double-sided weapons where always a bit bizar, I felt like they should of required less feats but they never really did.

[IchigoRXC]

I think there should be a penalty to the offhand if it is a large weapon, but I do not think it should be restricted. Also my votes were easy after watching the Hobbit, a nice reminder on how much I was to be able to dual wield a magical staff and a long sword at the same time. Gandalf is boss!

 

Ooh, ooh, should one be able to dual wield a sword and a fist!?

 

I think it would be cool to maybe have a grapple is you go single handed weapon style with a free hand. Could use it for counters and such, as they thrust you use there momentum, grab their arm pull them in close and run them through with your main hand.

Edited December 23, 2012 by IchigoRXC

[IchigoRXC]

Double Post

Edited December 23, 2012 by IchigoRXC

[AGX-17]

Double-sided weapons where always a bit bizar[sic], I felt like they should of required less feats but they never really did.

 

What do you mean "double-sided," like those lightsabers in star wars with a lightstaber sticking out both ends of the hilt, or a double-edged blade (which is common to the point of being standard throughout history)?

 

Or are you talking about dual-wielding without managing to use the commonly accepted terminology for dual-wielding?

Edited December 23, 2012 by AGX-17

[Jasede]

Double-sided blades from D&D, such as the double-sword, the double-axe and the double-mace.

 

To use them effectively you'd need all the usual dual-wield fields, plus exotic weapon proficiency in them. In return you got an off-hand that deals slightly higher damage (1d8 vs 1d6, for example), generally with a better crit modifier. The main advantage was that it'd let you cast Magic Weapon and Flame Weapon on both ends at once in one spell, saving your wizard spell slots.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Jasede

[Jarmo]

The double blades served the purpose of being there, which was what was wanted after the awesomely cool double lightsabre in Phantom Menace.

Since it's D&D, you can't just add a double sword without offending the folks wanting a double axe or double hammer or double whatever, so just add them all.

Got very bad in both KotOR's, you basically needed one of those, because everything else was much less effective.

 

I think that's mostly passed now. Which is good.

[PrimeJunta]

Question for the weapons geeks here (out of pure curiosity), are there any real-life counterparts to those D&D double-sided weapons, or are they a pure fantasy conceit?

 

[TMTVL]

Nah, the closest you had were spears with points on both ends. Those double swords would be completely impractical to use single handed, and double handed you've got the problem of having limited range when both your hands are full. They might slightly resemble combat staves, but combat staves have the advantage of decent reach.

 

Double handed weapons usually need to have a reach advantage (think pikes or halberds. Not spears, those were used single-handed in most of Europe) otherwise you're just gonna get steamrolled by sword 'n shield fighters.

 

Of course in close quarters the use of long weapons was usually a bad idea.

 

Not to mention double swords would probably be difficult to forge and quite a waste of good iron.

[PrimeJunta]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I have some very limited martial arts experience with staves and swords, and just couldn't figure out how you could use anything like that effectively in combat.

[Adhin]

They where basically combat staffs modeled, the actual image they posted from the inventory isn't proper to the actual model or DnD illustrations. It was just a poor setup to show off the blade type due to how NWN handled weapon model swapping for customization stuff. In game it was literally just a staff with short swords on it doing 1-8 dmg but acting like you where using 2 shorties. Guess that was its 1 real advantage as said before outside of enchanting since ultimately you'd have a +5 by lvl 16 anyway. You'd get the lesser penalty of smaller weapons like shorties with dmg of medium weapons of said type, longsword, battle axe, maces.

 

Also I don't think there should be a benefit to having a smaller weapon in the off hand. That's a parrying dagger thing. Having 2 equal sized swords (shorties, scims, longswords).. having the basic same length and weight generally makes it easier to balance your self. With a smaller weapon in the off hand your lopsided and how you go about 'dual wielding' becomes much, much different. You end up using the off as more of a feint like the parrying dagger concept and have to put most your effort into the larger weapon as you deal with the difference in weights for either hand.

 

Basically closer they are, the closer your going to get to anything resembling (least in my eyes) proper dual wielding. Tomahawk/1h Axe in the off hand doesn't have the same reach but has about the same weight as your sabre, lets say. And would allow for hooking of weapons, shoulders, allows for more then a dagger would while keeping your over all balance about the same. If I was going to ever dual wield for the reals, It would be just that. An Axe in off, some kind of board or sabre main. It's how I picture my Rangers dual wielding and often how i have them equipped. Axe is useful outside of combat, and makes an excellent utility off hand that still functions as a very powerful striking weapon, sword gives better reach and stabbing potential in main hand... makes a nasty combo. Plus makes sense for a rangers basic woodmen gear along with the bow for hunting.

[Tychoxi]

I think there should be off-hand weapons (ie. smaller, special). BUT if I want to equip two full, big, fat axes then I should be able to as long as I meet the requirements/feats/whatever and am willing to accept the penalties (I would expect bigish penalties until you reach certain levels/acquire feats/whatever, then smallish penalties).

 

Dual wielding, I love 'em.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Tychoxi

[Adhin]

Yeah if you got superhuman strength a sledgehammer in each hand isn't as silly. Then again sledgehammers aren't designed for combat, they're far to heavy to be practical for that job. Pickaxes for that matter are overweight in that category. Claymores only about 5 pounds, sledgehammers a good chunk over that, 10-20lb (near same for pickaxes). That said most axes are relatively light even the 2 hander variant unless your talking the faky fantasy giant disc axes. Or those huge ones I think the danes used or something. But your average 1-handed viking axe or (smaller) tomahawk can easily be off handed, very little reason to use a second hand on em.

 

I think folks get the wrong idea with this stuff far to often, especially weapon weight. Then again if you look at NWN weapon weight they're all roughly double there actual values (in RL and in PnP handbooks). Main reason a lot of that stuff got double weight values (such as a longsword being 8lb -.-) was they didn't have a middle weight transition like in PnP. In 3E handbook if your strength allowed say 100, at half that you got slowed down. NWN that 100lb stayed but you didn't get slowed till you hit 101, so they kinda doubled stuff. cRPG's amiright?

[AGX-17]

Question for the weapons geeks here (out of pure curiosity), are there any real-life counterparts to those D&D double-sided weapons, or are they a pure fantasy conceit?

 

 

Pure fantasy. Absoludicrous. As likely to gore your fellows as your foes.

[HansKrSG]

Using two weapons have been done successfully in history, but it takes time to master such a style. I am guessing it should be harder to master using two large weapons which is also different types of weapons (flail + sword for example), but it shouldn't be impossible to use. Let it take more time and effort, but let a character who uses a lot of their allotted advancement points (feats or whatever) on this, not have any penalties in the end.

 

Some real life pairings:

Rapier(or other long sword) + main gauche (or dagger or sword-breaker etc.)

Katana + Wakizashi (Or longsword and shortsword)

 

The use of two long weapons at the same time has never been used by many, but the few that did master such styles are said to get something out of it, making it not a waste of time in a combat (or rather duelling) situation. Since in an rpg you are not playing a common soldier, I say let people who want to explore that style, do so. I care not of how many drizzt characters there are out there in a single player game.

 

I know this is a topic where people have strong opinions.

Lets try to agree on the following:

1: Most soldiers and fighters in history has mastered using 1 weapon at a time. (Or has died before mastering anything )

2: Most people who has fought with 2 weapons, have used one of them more as a parrying weapon, or used it for close quarter fighting when the combat has become too close for longer weapons.

3: Using two weapons have been done successfully, but only by people who have first mastered using one weapon in both hands.

4: This is a fantasy game where you can play a character that can achieve near perfection in any style he chooses, helped by the power of his/her soul, so lets throw real life combat books out the window.

[TMTVL]

If we are talking about realism, how about making the heads of battle axes tiny in comparison to the ridiculous stuff we see in most games? And the same for warhammers as well, a'course. The warhammer used in medieval Europe was used to pierce through the helmet of your opponent, so if the head was even a bit too large, not only wouldn't you be able to swing it at even semi-decent speed, it wouldn't be as lethal.