It was perfeclty fine the BG way.

It was powerful but you had to spend a lot of weapon profs on it.

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by Striped_Wolf

 

 

Oh, paired long weapons were definitely used, though almost always in a civilian context. Case of rapiers/Florentine swordsmanship was quite popular for a time, and I've heard historical fencers claim that it provides unparalleled control.

 

Like you say, a style used in dueling (when you have pre-arranged rules). Not in a valetudinarian military context, nor in group battles.

 

Skirmishing =/= pitched warfare. There is a great deal of space in between duels and formation fighting alongside hundreds or thousands of others.

 

Certainly.

 

But my point was mainly that dueling features pre-arranged rules. A foil is not a weapon used in serious warfare and it was never meant to be one. So the fact that people have fought with two foils does not prove anything about the value of using foils, or two foils, to actually kill people effectively.

 

Full disclosure: I was fencing with foils for about 5 years, several days every week. Such a light weapon as a foil WOULD be usable with one in both hands, but it is a bad example since such light piercing weapons are very rarely used in serious combat (as main weapons). IMO I would probably choose to have something like this in my second hand however: 

 

 

And that would be useful primarily for defensive purposes and for close-up stabbing. Anything much larger than that, and it would start having an impact your mobility. What would kill you in foil fencing is the power behind the thrust of the foil, which is gained by pushing your entire body forward with your rear leg. There is little offensive use of two foils in this instance.

 

The problem becomes even worse with heavier, slashing weapons with which you use your entire body to swing and balance. Having a heavy off-hand weapon would be not be of any use there. Think about a typical medieval arming sword (which is pretty heavy if you have ever held one):

 

 

Little use in dual-wielding those. Especially against armour: it is the heavy, accurate, crippling blow (or thrust...) which does damage - any lighter blows are going to just bounce off. And don't even get me started about these.

 

 

I don't suppose you'd care to qualify what makes Asian martial arts more "exotic" than European martial arts, would you?

 

(Also, note: I didn't say "experts." In Filipino martial arts, you might well learn to fight with a pair of batons before you learn to fight unarmed.)

 

Why, of course. PoE seems to be set in a place which is mostly inspired by Europe in terms of weaponry and culture. So considering the setting, what we consider exotic Asian styles of martial arts is likely exotic also in PoE.

The best things to mod in are the simple things. Im gonna see if I can add 1 or 2 DR bypass to the standard 1 handed style and 1 more with the one handed style talent (all in addition to what they already do). Hopefully thats possible. Its a nice small bonus that should make the style slightly more worth it.

 

I will grab the unity trial later tonight. Hopefully you dont have to be a programmer to make simple mods for this game.

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by Shevek

Increased crit and accuracy for 1H.

The bonus already does that and its not enough.

Increased crit and accuracy for 1H.

And speed & DR bypass for dual wield.

 

IMO

Fits with the rogue themed dual wielding aswell...

...then add more.

But my point was mainly that dueling features pre-arranged rules. A foil is not a weapon used in serious warfare and it was never meant to be one. So the fact that people have fought with two foils does not prove anything about the value of using foils, or two foils, to actually kill people effectively.

 

Full disclosure: I was fencing with foils for about 5 years, several days every week. Such a light weapon as a foil WOULD be usable with one in both hands, but it is a bad example since such light piercing weapons are very rarely used in serious combat (as main weapons). IMO I would probably choose to have something like this in my second hand however:

 

[....]

 

And that would be useful primarily for defensive purposes and for close-up stabbing. Anything much larger than that, and it would start having an impact your mobility. What would kill you in foil fencing is the power behind the thrust of the foil, which is gained by pushing your entire body forward with your rear leg. There is little offensive use of two foils in this instance.

 

The foil was never used in serious warfare, no. The sidesword and rapier however, saw use by infantry and cavalry at war, in addition to civilians looking to do each other in, at around the time where PoE's technology is set. The term "case of rapiers" originates from the practice of carrying a pair of rapiers side-by-side in a single sheath (something also done in some Asian two-sword styles - you've probably seen it in a Avatar, or in a kungfu movie somewhere). We see it here and there in training manuals. IIRC, there are accounts suggesting that it was remarkably good at killing, and its main failure was defensive; two-sword fighters tended to take their opponents with them.

 

Actually discussing the specifics of technique approaches the limits of what I know about this subject. I've studied Chinese martial arts, but never two-sword fighting, and the rest of what I know comes from research and talking to people in other disciplines than myself. However, the training manuals exist, so we know it was done, and the weapons it was done with were used in a legitimate military context.

 

The problem becomes even worse with heavier, slashing weapons with which you use your entire body to swing and balance. Having a heavy off-hand weapon would be not be of any use there. Think about a typical medieval arming sword (which is pretty heavy if you have ever held one):

 

[....]

 

Little use in dual-wielding those. Especially against armour: it is the heavy, accurate, crippling blow (or thrust...) which does damage - any lighter blows are going to just bounce off.

 

The sidesword and rapier were notably heavier than the foil, although slighter than the arming sword - which, by the time of their appearance, was already on its way out. That said ...

 

 

And don't even get me started about these.

 

Melon hammers were typically used in pairs.

 

 

I don't suppose you'd care to qualify what makes Asian martial arts more "exotic" than European martial arts, would you?

 

(Also, note: I didn't say "experts." In Filipino martial arts, you might well learn to fight with a pair of batons before you learn to fight unarmed.)

 

Why, of course. PoE seems to be set in a place which is mostly inspired by Europe in terms of weaponry and culture. So considering the setting, what we consider exotic Asian styles of martial arts is likely exotic also in PoE.

 

This is a game with kung fu monks (and no, the self-flagellation thing does not disqualify them, everybody did that).

As you people are musing, let's not forget that there's two things that needs to be fixed, through two separate mechanics.

 

There's the innate bonus to fighting One-Handed (currently +10 Accuracy).

 

And then there's the One-Handed Weapon Fighting Talent (Currently +20 Graze-to-Hit, if memory serves).

 

I'm of the opinion that innate changes such as to just wielding a weapon should be very simple, such as adding a flat Penetration bonus, increasing the Accuracy bonus (my proposal is still +20 Accuracy), extra attack speed, reduced recovery speed, etc. That is, modifiers that are very plain and easy to grasp and understand, without significant changes to the play style.

 

Now the Talent, however, is another matter entirely. Talents should primarily, imho, influence how something plays, or basically require you to read the Talent to know what changes it does to your character. So this could be anything from turning Grazes into Hits, turning incoming Hits into Grazes (something I'd like to see added), or adding something like a chance to XYZ when you Crit.

 

So suggestions for specific changes should probably specify exactly which part of the duelist playstyle should be amended and how.

Really one handed should be represented like your character is a duelist essentially. So like added accuracy and penetration to represent a person trained in fencing as an example, someone who uses one weapon with an emphasis on percision.

Dual wield and 2 handed are fine. They have their uses. 1 handed needs a buff. I think I figured out how to edit talents. I will add dr bypass to the one handed style talent easily (adding in a "Generic Ability" with "Melee DTBypass"). Adding dr bypass to the base 1 handed style seems tricky. I will try that tonight.

 

As you people are musing, let's not forget that there's two things that needs to be fixed, through two separate mechanics.

 

There's the innate bonus to fighting One-Handed (currently +10 Accuracy).

 

And then there's the One-Handed Weapon Fighting Talent (Currently +20 Graze-to-Hit, if memory serves).

 

I'm of the opinion that innate changes such as to just wielding a weapon should be very simple, such as adding a flat Penetration bonus, increasing the Accuracy bonus (my proposal is still +20 Accuracy), extra attack speed, reduced recovery speed, etc. That is, modifiers that are very plain and easy to grasp and understand, without significant changes to the play style.

 

Now the Talent, however, is another matter entirely. Talents should primarily, imho, influence how something plays, or basically require you to read the Talent to know what changes it does to your character. So this could be anything from turning Grazes into Hits, turning incoming Hits into Grazes (something I'd like to see added), or adding something like a chance to XYZ when you Crit.

 

So suggestions for specific changes should probably specify exactly which part of the duelist playstyle should be amended and how.

Really one handed should be represented like your character is a duelist essentially. So like added accuracy and penetration to represent a person trained in fencing as an example, someone who uses one weapon with an emphasis on percision.

 

 

A duelist is certainly one way to look at it. I see it more as a "scrapper". Someone who goes into a rough tavern, starts some ****, and then steel comes out. They use their free hand to tip chairs in the way, to grab and throw things, or to manipulate their environment while still being able to wield a weapon. 

 

Fighting with a free hand opens up tactics involving having a freaking free hand. It's fighting, not dueling. It's using everything around you to your advantage to win. Dueling is an art, and it has rules and "honor". Fighting is dangerous and chaotic, and every advantage has to be used to stay alive. 

 

As you people are musing, let's not forget that there's two things that needs to be fixed, through two separate mechanics.

 

There's the innate bonus to fighting One-Handed (currently +10 Accuracy).

 

And then there's the One-Handed Weapon Fighting Talent (Currently +20 Graze-to-Hit, if memory serves).

 

I'm of the opinion that innate changes such as to just wielding a weapon should be very simple, such as adding a flat Penetration bonus, increasing the Accuracy bonus (my proposal is still +20 Accuracy), extra attack speed, reduced recovery speed, etc. That is, modifiers that are very plain and easy to grasp and understand, without significant changes to the play style.

 

Now the Talent, however, is another matter entirely. Talents should primarily, imho, influence how something plays, or basically require you to read the Talent to know what changes it does to your character. So this could be anything from turning Grazes into Hits, turning incoming Hits into Grazes (something I'd like to see added), or adding something like a chance to XYZ when you Crit.

 

So suggestions for specific changes should probably specify exactly which part of the duelist playstyle should be amended and how.

Really one handed should be represented like your character is a duelist essentially. So like added accuracy and penetration to represent a person trained in fencing as an example, someone who uses one weapon with an emphasis on percision.

 

 

The only reason I'm not embracing the +Penetration idea is really only because I find it very boring, but it's certainly a viable solution.

 

But the base Accuracy still needs to be upped, I say, no matter what happens to the One-Handed Fighting Style Talent.

 

My idea of adding a Hit-to-Graze modifier to incoming attacks comes not from the idea that dueling allows you to aim better, but rather than the free hand offers greater mobility, allowing you to deflect incoming blows or dodge to the side. Same rationale as for the idea of adding reduced recovery time whenever you manage to deflect with only a 1-handed weapon - essentially a riposte/counter-attack mechanic.

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by Luckmann

Maybe that advantage is grabbing a guy by the scruff of the neck with the free hand and using that a leverage to bury your weapon deep in his stomach under a gap in his armor. That is also dt bypass.

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by Shevek

Well, as long as the weapon is light enough (and solely intended for use with one hand) it makes sense to have some other, light weapon in your off-hand. But as we enter thea area of heavier weapons - which all weapons except the small daggers used at zero distance are in an armoured fight - you will direly need the balance afforded by not having a heavy weapon in your second hand. And that's not mentioning shields.

 

The fact remains that dual-wielding (the following in D&D terminology) long swords, bastard swords, morning stars, war hammers, maces, clubs, axes and scimitars makes little sense, except if you are monstrously strong and heavy (for balance) of course. But then you could just as well dual wield two-handed swords and halberds as well, if you are strong enough. IMO strength should restrict dual wielding, and the restrictions should be much harsher than what we commonly see in games today to avoid the kind of Axe Cop-level cheese you are seeing with regards to dual wielding. Normal humans should only ever be able to effectively dual wield light thrusting weapons, daggers and similar. If we continue down the current road we might as well have characters fix swords to their feet so they can stab their enemies with four blades instead of only two.

 

 

And don't even get me started about these.

 

Melon hammers were typically used in pairs.

 

 

Ha ha ha. Forgive me if I laugh, but... I guess there is a reason you call it martial arts. What the heck? I guess "melon" refers to the colossal amount of empty space inside the head of the weapon?

 

Okay, this guy's dual hammers looks more like an actual weapon. However, with so short hammers they will both be very lacking for parrying and lacking the momentum of serious, longer maces. My bet is that the fact that the centre of mass lies close to the hand makes the technique somewhat similar to fist fighting, that being the rationale for using such an odd weapon.

I would go with a simple +accuracy/+deflection bonus for 1h style weapon usage. I envision this would be used for the "medium BAB" type melees or as a secondary weapon for ranged etc, requiring little investment stat/class wise. Specialization would increase both stats (and maybe concentration?), assuming duelist type fighters would take it just to have higher basic combat stats/reliability. Attacks go like .--.--.--.--.--
 
Dual wield I'd assume would go on someone that wants to focus on DPS, thus just attack speed increase when using 2 weapons. Actually scratch that, leave attack speed the same but reduce the recovery time between attacks. Could give it a deflection penalty, too. Attacking faster also means more interrupt rolls, so that could offset it, or at least reqire the player to do more micro and play the cahracter in a different role. Specialization could then remove or lessen the penalty for the damage dealer type fighters, without actually making them take over striker roles. This'd be .-.-.-.-.-.-.-
 
2h weapons are just naturaly more damaging, which provides it's own benefits against DR, so no extra bonuses are needed. Maybe instead of an attack speed penalty they could get an accuracy one? These weapons would fit the same characters as dual wielding, just in a different perspective (and different enemies). Specializing would increase the existing strengths - more damage (or reduce/remove penalty)! Would look like -:---:---
 
Shields could just a be a cheap and simple sizeable deflection bonus. Maybe some extra concentration?. Obviously used for characters that get hit a lot. Could be something more interesting, like making the attacking characters roll twice and use the worse roll, or maybe provide extra DR for non-crits or something? I feel like characters focusing on defense shouldn't be penalized further offensively. The thing with defenses is that they're only useful when not having them would impede your ability to get through an encounter. When you're not getting hit they're just there doing nothing.
 
I'm just being an armchair critic here as I didn't play the beta, though...

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by Sabotin

Dual wielding swords with no armor by default is one second per swing

 

Using a sword 1H with no armor is 3 seconds per swing

how does that make sense ?? Thats overpowered... whats the catch ?

Actually it is more than 1h just isn't worth anything at all.  Dual isn't off the scale compared to to twohanded and ranged weapons (given the lesser effect of multiplers and greater effect of DR).  They just dropped the ball entirely on single weapons.

 

Dual wielding swords with no armor by default is one second per swing

 

Using a sword 1H with no armor is 3 seconds per swing

how does that make sense ?? Thats overpowered... whats the catch ?

 

 

None. Dual Wield is better than 1H in each and every application.

 

Dual wielding swords with no armor by default is one second per swing

 

Using a sword 1H with no armor is 3 seconds per swing

how does that make sense ?? Thats overpowered... whats the catch ?

 

 

It doesn't. There is no catch.

 

Overall, there's a lot of strife on the forum and related to some discussions, but often, it really does just come down to math and quantifiable fact.

 

Like Morhilane said above me, Dual-Wield is better than Dueling in each and every known application. Objectively.

 

I have no doubt that someone will step in and try to tell us that naw, naw, he used it just yesterday and it worked fine. Or that there's some super-obscure tactic that could probably work well, arguably under the right circumstances, or if you just take those Talents just so, it doesn't suck quite that much and therefore it's fine. Or that they don't care about the balance and will do this anyway and therefore it's wrong to argue that it should be more balanced (I'm paraphrasing here).

 

But at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, it's a numbers game, and duelists just don't win out. You will be able to finish the game with it, but you should know that it's a trap choice if you're trying to do the best you can.

 

Actually it is more than 1h just isn't worth anything at all. Dual isn't off the scale compared to to twohanded and ranged weapons (given the lesser effect of multiplers and greater effect of DR). They just dropped the ball entirely on single weapons.

It's important to remember this too, so I'm quoting it. It's not dual-wielding that is overpowered, it is dueling that is terrible. While any argument regarding Sword-and-Board takes us back to the defence/offence dichotomy, at least it lets you trade offence for defence. Offensively, it's between two-handers and dual-wielding.

 

And dueling is the bum deal.

Edited March 20, 201510 yr by Luckmann