A brilliant modification to the two weapon style talent

[Valorian]

How many times have you had to choose between practicality and looks? Many times.

Paired weapons look so much better! Because symmetry. Two daggers, two rapiers, two swords.. you name it. But it's often not mechanically practical without specific talents. And even then it's subpar when you find certain weapons.

 

If you want to be a dual wielding adventurer who adventures with style, this small modification to the talent is absolutely necessary. 

 

 

+5 to accuracy if you wield the same weapon type in both hands and have the TWS talent.

 

Thx, bye.

 

 

[Luckmann]

No thanks.

[Valorian]

This change would ruin your fun to the point of making you curl into a fetal position and crawl to the nearest safe space, wouldn't it? 

[MunoValente]

I think small weapons as the offhand weapon getting bonus makes most sense.  Maybe they could include things like main gauche or swordbreaker as offhand parry weapon.  As I mentioned in the other thread hatchets don't really make a lot of sense to me as an off hand weapon giving a deflection bonus.

 

Two rapiers seems like it would be really awkward.

[lastpawn]

One, I find sword/dagger much more aesthetically pleasing than dagger/dagger, so that's a personal preference. Two, scimitar/scimitar is already the strongest dual wield in terms of DPS.

[Luckmann]

This change would ruin your fun to the point of making you curl into a fetal position and crawl to the nearest safe space, wouldn't it? 

 

Pretty much, yes. Not only is there no inherent reason why such a bonus would exist, but it would also practically force anyone that is dual-wielding into dual-wielding two weapons of the same type. Nevermind the fact that you'd effectively be giving dual-wielders a flat +5 Accuracy.

 

So no. No thanks.

 

I think small weapons as the offhand weapon getting bonus makes most sense.  Maybe they could include things like main gauche or swordbreaker as offhand parry weapon.  As I mentioned in the other thread hatchets don't really make a lot of sense to me as an off hand weapon giving a deflection bonus.

 

Two rapiers seems like it would be really awkward.

 

This. If anyone at all is going to have a bonus when dual-wielding, it's Small/Light Off-Hand weapons combined with medium Main-Hand weapons.

 

That'd still be iffy, mechanically speaking, but at least it's somewhat defensible, imo.

[Valorian]

I appreciate your feedback, my little council. All right. Let's modify the modification so the bonus 5 accuracy applies only if:

 

-2 fast weapons

-same weapon type (2 flails, 2 daggers etc.)

-have the TWS talent

 

 

Everyone happy now?

 

 

 

This change would ruin your fun to the point of making you curl into a fetal position and crawl to the nearest safe space, wouldn't it? 

 

Pretty much, yes. 

 

 

Good.

[Luckmann]

I appreciate your feedback, my little council. All right. Let's modify the modification so the bonus 5 accuracy applies only if:

 

-2 fast weapons

-same weapon type (2 flails, 2 daggers etc.)

-have the TWS talent

 

 

Everyone happy now?

No. For the exact same reasons as before. Not only will anyone that dual-wields have that Talent anyway (making it a false restriction), but all it'd really do is to restrict the effective dual-wield combinations further, and it'd still be a boost dual-wielding absolutely doesn't need.

[FlintlockJazz]

Counter-proposal: We burn you at the stake while I feast upon your soul, yes?  Dual-wielding stays the same (considering that I'm one of those people who thinks dual-wielding should be renamed "Flamboyant Idiot Style" that provides only the bonus "You look like a flashy twit" then you should consider that a compromise).

Edited June 2, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[Crucis]

Some points in response.

 

 

1. Dual wielding a pair of daggers doesn't seem odd at all to me.  Not so sure about stilettos.  I'm far from knowledgeable about this, but a dual dagger combo just makes more sense since they'd be more about slashing or jabbing, whereas it seems that trying to dual wield with a pair of jabbing weapons seems just off.

 

2. Dual wielding some sort of one handed sword and a dagger (and perhaps a stiletto as well) seems entirely acceptable, though this seems like it'd be more of a style where the off-handed weapon is mostly for defense (i.e. parrying, etc.) but with some offensive potential.

 

3. Dual wielding things like a pair of full sized swords or clubs/maces, etc. may seem stylish in games, but it feels like it wouldn't be practical in the real world.  Oh sure, it's just a game and we can go with stuff that might not be exactly practical in the real world.    And the idea of dual wielding flails seems really wrong.  It seems to me that trying to wield a weapon that's essentially a (spiked) ball on the end of a chain would be hard enough when you're using one.  Using two of them just seems unfeasible.

 

And if anything, it seems to me that trying to wield a full sized weapon in your offhand should incur a significant accuracy penalty on the offhanded weapons, and perhaps even a mild one on the primary hand weapon, since you're trying to focus on fighting with both weapons rather than a single weapon, which would seem to me to reduce your effectiveness even with the primary weapon.  This is different when you're using a "light weapon" like a dagger or stiletto, since I'd think that the normal use of such a weapon in the off hand would be as a parrying "tool" rather than an offensive weapon.  That is, your offensive moves would be with your primary weapon, and your defensive moves would be with both weapons.

[Valorian]

 

I appreciate your feedback, my little council. All right. Let's modify the modification so the bonus 5 accuracy applies only if:

 

-2 fast weapons

-same weapon type (2 flails, 2 daggers etc.)

-have the TWS talent

 

 

Everyone happy now?

No. For the exact same reasons as before. Not only will anyone that dual-wields have that Talent anyway (making it a false restriction), but all it'd really do is to restrict the effective dual-wield combinations further, and it'd still be a boost dual-wielding absolutely doesn't need.

 

 

 Is it a boost or a restriction? Make up your mind. It's still very likely that the player will have two different weapons (for a good portion of the game) that combined would be the most powerful dual wielding option despite losing the 5 accuracy bonus. And please let's not delve into where to find what and "THE MOST EFFECTIVE COMBO EVER!"; let people who'd like to avoid spoilers find that for themselves.

And so what if it restricts you a bit? It restricts you no more than weapon focus does.

 

Counter-proposal: We burn you at the stake while I feast upon your soul, yes?  Dual-wielding stays the same (considering that I'm one of those people who thinks dual-wielding should be renamed "Flamboyant Idiot Style" that provides only the bonus "You look like a flashy twit" then you should consider that a compromise).

 

I don't negotiate with psychopaths. Start begging for mercy NOW.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Counter-proposal: We burn you at the stake while I feast upon your soul, yes?  Dual-wielding stays the same (considering that I'm one of those people who thinks dual-wielding should be renamed "Flamboyant Idiot Style" that provides only the bonus "You look like a flashy twit" then you should consider that a compromise).

 

I don't negotiate with psychopaths. Start begging for mercy NOW.

 

How rude!  All I did was provide a counter-proposal, and I ain't no psychopath!  Demented, yes, some may consider me megalomanical (you express a desire to bring order to the world under your divine rule and people start throwing accusations of being power mad all around), but psychopathic?  No, I generally do care for those I wish to subjugate!  Now excuse me while I munch on some souls.

Edited June 2, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[manageri]

You can't just slap on random bonuses to random things for aesthetics. I mean come on.

[Valorian]

You can't just slap on random bonuses to random things for aesthetics. I mean come on.

 

There's nothing random about it. There are 3 prerequisites. It's as "random" as the D&D penalty to AB if you wield a medium weapon in your off-hand.

 

Also, if you want to discuss realism instead; sure! It's easier to be accurate when your brain doesn't have to account for the differences between the weapon in your right hand and the weapon in your left hand; size, length, weight, optimal trajectory. It's easier when it's mirrored.

[Certus]

I like this idea. I think you should get +5 deflection for matching coloured armor and cape too. +10 would be OP:)

[Valorian]

Now, now, let's not exaggerate.

+1 deflection for matching colors would be enough. 

[Yonjuro]

..

Also, if you want to discuss realism instead; sure! It's easier to be accurate when your brain doesn't have to account for the differences between the weapon in your right hand and the weapon in your left hand; size, length, weight, optimal trajectory. It's easier when it's mirrored.

 

 Well, ok, realism.

 

 Historically, almost nobody ever dual wielded. I say 'almost' because the Filipinos sometimes used two equal length weapons, usually two sticks or short to medium length swords. This style can be very effective, but it relies on specialized training drills (called sinawali -  'weaving') to learn to avoid tangling yourself up.

 

 Sword and dagger was more common in Europe (and was also commonly used in the Philippines, possibly due to Spanish influence or maybe it was the other way - but I think that style existed in Europe before the Spanish went to the Philippines. It might have been independently developed.) Also note that Miyamoto Musashi wrote about using two swords in The Book of Five Rings that he wrote late in life after surviving a large number of duals but he never actually did it in any of the duals he fought.

 

 Sword and dagger fighting was generally not used on battlefields. On a battlefield, you want a shield to defend against projectile weapons. Walking around town, you wouldn't be carrying a shield. An empty hand is just another target for your opponents so a dagger (or a buckler) is far better than nothing. 

 

 I'm pretty sure that what I've written here is historically accurate (European fencing treatises are available online, if you care). If you have credible sources that say otherwise, of course I would be interested to know about them.

[rnarchlord]

In many other games dual wielding produces a penalty to both damage done and attack speed.  Unless you are truly absolutely ambidextrous you cannot wield two weapons, whether different or the same, equally effectively and as quickly as one weapon.  So both accuracy and rate of attack will suffer which is more realistic.  In some European styles of fighting two weapons are used but the off hand weapon is basically for defense (parrying) and the attack effort is mostly exerted on the dominant hand weapon.  The off hand weapon generally has projections like the Ninja's Sai or elaborate hand guards to hold/twist the attacking blade from reaching you.  This makes for highly crafted daggers and short swords used for offhand fighting.  This type of fighting was mostly confined to duels rather than the battlefield.

[Crucis]

 

You can't just slap on random bonuses to random things for aesthetics. I mean come on.

 

There's nothing random about it. There are 3 prerequisites. It's as "random" as the D&D penalty to AB if you wield a medium weapon in your off-hand.

 

Also, if you want to discuss realism instead; sure! It's easier to be accurate when your brain doesn't have to account for the differences between the weapon in your right hand and the weapon in your left hand; size, length, weight, optimal trajectory. It's easier when it's mirrored.

 

 

Bah.  The entire idea of dual wielding a pair of offensive weapons (as opposed to "dual wielding" an offensive weapon and a parrying "weapon") is relatively absurd. It's "easier" to be fighting with only a single offensive weapon, period.  Dual wielding is only a thing because people seem to think that it sounds or looks cool, not because it's practical.

 

Personally, it wouldn't bother me if PoE dropped dual wielding entirely.  Then hanged weapons slots from being a pair of slots to a single slot each, and a single slot outside of the weapons slots for a shield (sort of like wizard carries a grimoire in a slot outside of the weapon slot pairs currently).  One advantage with this that I'd like is that you wouldn't need multiple shields if you wanted to carry multiple 1H weapons to use with shields.  Then there would be the issue of what happens if you want to put a 2H weapon in a weapon slot while you have a shield equipped in the single shield slot.  Does the presence of the shield in that slot block the equipping of a 2H weapon?  Or could you be allowed to equip a 2H weapon in one of the slots, with the proviso that if you switch from a 1H weapon (with the shield equipped and functional) to a 2H weapon, the otherwise equipped shield becomes non-functional (as if it wasn't equipped)?

 

Just some thoughts.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Crucis

[Rabain]

The correct solution would be to implement a stat called Style and have dual wielding same weapon add +5 style.  Hats with feathers would also add style, as would shirts with big collars.

 

I'm not sure if being able to kill opponents with Style should be implemented but I'm not completely against the idea.

[Luckmann]

 

You can't just slap on random bonuses to random things for aesthetics. I mean come on.

 

There's nothing random about it. There are 3 prerequisites. It's as "random" as the D&D penalty to AB if you wield a medium weapon in your off-hand.

 

Also, if you want to discuss realism instead; sure! It's easier to be accurate when your brain doesn't have to account for the differences between the weapon in your right hand and the weapon in your left hand; size, length, weight, optimal trajectory. It's easier when it's mirrored.

 

Except it's not. The only time this'd be remotely true would be if you're literally ambidextrous, which is a pretty rare trait. Also, this would in no way account for the fact that there is no reason two swords or two clubs would be equal in how they handle in terms of size, weight, distribution of mass, and shape.

 

This makes no sense. Not conceptually, not realistically, not mechanically.

 

It's not brilliant, it's stupid.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Luckmann

[Tennisgolfboll]

The correct solution would be to implement a stat called Style and have dual wielding same weapon add +5 style. Hats with feathers would also add style, as would shirts with big collars.

 

I'm not sure if being able to kill opponents with Style should be implemented but I'm not completely against the idea.

: )

 

Good stuff

[Valorian]

 

 

You can't just slap on random bonuses to random things for aesthetics. I mean come on.

 

There's nothing random about it. There are 3 prerequisites. It's as "random" as the D&D penalty to AB if you wield a medium weapon in your off-hand.

 

Also, if you want to discuss realism instead; sure! It's easier to be accurate when your brain doesn't have to account for the differences between the weapon in your right hand and the weapon in your left hand; size, length, weight, optimal trajectory. It's easier when it's mirrored.

 

Except it's not. The only time this'd be remotely true would be if you're literally ambidextrous, which is a pretty rare trait. Also, this would in no way account for the fact that there is no reason two swords or two clubs would be equal in how they handle in terms of size, weight, distribution of mass, and shape.

 

This makes no sense. Not conceptually, not realistically, not mechanically.

 

It's not brilliant, it's stupid.

 

 

 

But hon, you surely noticed that in this game a dagger looks more like *gasp* another dagger than.. a club or rapier?

It is established that in Eora both hands are equally accurate (source: dual wielding). People are ambidextrous by default... not that I particularly like it.

 

 

I am fascinated that you still have energy for whining and having fits, even over something that's not actually in the game. 

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

You can't just slap on random bonuses to random things for aesthetics. I mean come on.

 

There's nothing random about it. There are 3 prerequisites. It's as "random" as the D&D penalty to AB if you wield a medium weapon in your off-hand.

 

Also, if you want to discuss realism instead; sure! It's easier to be accurate when your brain doesn't have to account for the differences between the weapon in your right hand and the weapon in your left hand; size, length, weight, optimal trajectory. It's easier when it's mirrored.

 

Except it's not. The only time this'd be remotely true would be if you're literally ambidextrous, which is a pretty rare trait. Also, this would in no way account for the fact that there is no reason two swords or two clubs would be equal in how they handle in terms of size, weight, distribution of mass, and shape.

 

This makes no sense. Not conceptually, not realistically, not mechanically.

 

It's not brilliant, it's stupid.

 

 

 

But hon, you surely noticed that in this game a dagger looks more like *gasp* another dagger than.. a club or rapier?

It is established that in Eora both hands are equally accurate (source: dual wielding). People are ambidextrous by default... not that I particularly like it.

 

 

I am fascinated that you still have energy for whining and having fits, even over something that's not actually in the game. 

 

 

No-one is whining or having fits, but you seem considerably irritated over the fact that virtually no-one liked your "brilliant" idea. The goal of the forum is to discuss things - if no-one would point out why this is a terrible idea, there's invariably going to be people that thinks it'd be good..

 

And I have no idea where you got the idea that everyone is ambidextrous from. I'd like a real source on that, because I think you're pullin' that one out of your hat.

 

And yeah, a sword is more like another sword than a club, but a sabre is also more like a sword than a club, and a stiletto is more like a dagger than a flail. Are you going to call for modifiers for that too, based on (largely unrealistic) "realism", too? Because that sounds like the FATAL school of roleplaying. Don't forget the historical accuracy.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Cantousent

[Valorian]

People are ambidextrous in PoE because when you put a weapon in your right hand and a weapon in your left hand neither gets a penalty.