Ban dual-wielding

[Snotty]

its funny because its true

[Frankychan]

It depends on what kind of game yer talking about.

Dual-wielding pistols in FPS games is acceptable. But dual-wielding shotguns is just stupid. Game designers should edit that crap out.

In fantasy type games I think it should be restricted to what kind of character you are. I'm sure as heck that a Thief in any game should be able to dual-wield. Same for Ninja's. The higher your Agility, the more likely you should be able to wield dual weapons.

But that whole deal with dual hammers? I dunno. If you do dual-wield hammers, you should have super crappy defense or be super a** slow.

[Sandman]

And what's unrealistic about 2 weapons? It generally (in an RPG) takes a lot of specialising, meaning you lose out on a lot of other abilities. As in real life, if someone trains for few years, wielding two weapons can be done. However you can become a lot more skilled with one in that time.

The thing is, you don't lose out on other abilities, because dual-wielding generally doubles the effect of any other weapons-type skills you have.

Dual-wielding is not so much unrealistic as unrealistically powerful. You can't effectively put your weight behind the weapons, but in games, they hit with the same power as a single weapon. A game with melee weapons where weight and balance are ignored is like a gun game where the weapons have infinite ammo.

And yes, 'it's fantasy'. But if you're going to have halfway realistic base weapons, instead of those ridiculous slabs of metal that anime characters carry, why not have halfway realistic fighting styles?

Dual-wielding is also a cliche. Not just in fantasy games, but in shooting games as well.

[snoopy369]

Most (decently realistic) games give you at least a penalty to the off-hand weapon's to-hit, if not to both weapons. Many games, like KOTOR, give you other penalties, such as skills that can be upgraded "one-handed melee" which give you a bonus only when wielding a single one-handed weapon ... or weapon forms that are more/only effective with a single weapon.

[Sandman]

Yeah, but most of the feats work just fine when you have two weapons. Plus, you can field four lightsabre crystals rather than two.

[Sandman]

KOTOR II was a bit different, I believe.

[Blake]

In WoW the offhand weapon does 50% damage and both weapons suffer approximately 20% higher miss rate. Additionally special moves only use the mainhand weapon.

One flaw in many games is that shields aren't really interesting enough, they just give passive bonuses to defense. It should be possible to smack stuff around with the shield.

WoW is especially bad in this regard. Shields look tiny and lame and there's only like two offensive shield moves and they aren't "cheap" moves to get.

[Snotty]

Shields should be more versatile. You should be able to block doorways or small tunnels, or work together with other shield warriors

[duke o' york]

Players making a Roman tortoise would be hilarious to see.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Sandman
The thing is, you don't lose out on other abilities, because dual-wielding generally doubles the effect of any other weapons-type skills you have.

Well, in NWN, you have to choose 3 feats to dual-wield properly, which considering non-fighters get 6 over the course of the game, reduces a lot the other skills they can choose. Even with this they get a -2/-2 penalty to hit. Plus weapons wielded with two hands get 150% more strength damage. Statistically, in NWN, the Greatsword is the weapon a fighter with strength 18 does the most damage with, per round. Only with a low strength does dual-wielding give better results, and that's *with* the 3 feats. You lose out on other abilities as you can't choose many of them when you have to choose a lot of dual-wielding feats to be able to do it well.

In Baldur's Gate II, dual wielding once you've spent three points on the skill is more powerful, however if you spent those points on using a shield, you'd have a vastly better defence. 3 points on dual wielding with longswords has very similar statistical damage to 2 points on two handed weapon and a two handed sword.

Originally posted by Sandman
Dual-wielding is not so much unrealistic as unrealistically powerful. You can't effectively put your weight behind the weapons, but in games, they hit with the same power as a single weapon. A game with melee weapons where weight and balance are ignored is like a gun game where the weapons have infinite ammo.

I see your point, but only older games have that, AFAIK. NWN has the '2 handed weapons do extra strength damage because of having your weight behind them' thing.

Originally posted by Sandman
And yes, 'it's fantasy'. But if you're going to have halfway realistic base weapons, instead of those ridiculous slabs of metal that anime characters carry, why not have halfway realistic fighting styles?

I think it is. After the amount of training all games require each dual wielding character to undergo (unless they want huge penalties), I'd say fighting with two weapons is realistic. You can fight with any two one handed weapons in most games I've seen, which removes the fighting with two huge weapons. Plus it doesn't double your attacks, it adds one. In most games, where the characters doing it are fighters, they have 2 attacks already with a one handed weapon. As is realistic, the offhand weapon is used less often.

Dual wielding, with a character who's trained a lot in it, is far more realistic than sneaking *right beside* an enemy in the shadows, or than magically aided weapons, or than throwing axes. I hardly think it's out of character for a game with mages, large beasts, huge swords and the like to have dual wielding fighters who've trained in that skill.

Originally posted by Sandman
Dual-wielding is also a cliche. Not just in fantasy games, but in shooting games as well.

I'd disagree. Dual-wielding looks good, especially for certain characters. It's roleplayable, with a character who's spent years training with his swords. It gives character, a style that most characters don't use. I'd say a fighter running around with the biggest weapon he can find, or the mage casting fireball, are more clichés than dual wielding.

[Blake]

Something else I don't like in WoW is that you can't single-wield a one-hand weapon with nothing in the offhand. Well I mean you can but you lose out on important stats. But some classes just look more plausible using a single onehand weapon, like hunters (since they primarily use a ranged weapon it stands to reason they would have less than formidable melee skills and also wouldn't carry a heavy melee weapon).

[Barinthus]

Apparently I don't play that many games as some of you - most FPS I've played the only dual wielding guns are the basic types such as pistols. As for dual wielding melee-type weapons, those tend to be bladed not blunted and the secondary weapon never confer upon you its 100% damage or whatever.

[Sandman]

I heartily agree that shields should be more versatile and cooler. In a world of magic, they should be the primary defence against fireballs and the like.

Well, in NWN, you have to choose 3 feats to dual-wield properly, which considering non-fighters get 6 over the course of the game, reduces a lot the other skills they can choose. Even with this they get a -2/-2 penalty to hit. Plus weapons wielded with two hands get 150% more strength damage...

In Baldur's Gate II, dual wielding once you've spent three points on the skill is more powerful, however if you spent those points on using a shield, you'd have a vastly better defence. 3 points on dual wielding with longswords has very similar statistical damage to 2 points on two handed weapon and a two handed sword.

I see your point, but only older games have that, AFAIK. NWN has the '2 handed weapons do extra strength damage because of having your weight behind them' thing.

I think it is. After the amount of training all games require each dual wielding character to undergo (unless they want huge penalties), I'd say fighting with two weapons is realistic... Plus it doesn't double your attacks, it adds one. In most games, where the characters doing it are fighters, they have 2 attacks already with a one handed weapon. As is realistic, the offhand weapon is used less often.

That sounds like it's going in the right way, although I stand beside my claim that dual-wielding benefits more (maybe not double) from other weapons feats, in effect 'paying' for itself. Some classes get dual-wielding abilities for free (!), IIRC. I take it you disagree with that particular arrangement?

In BG2, I'm fairly sure that shield proficiency only affects missile attacks, might be wrong though. The thing about dual-wielding is that it allows you to combine powerful magical weapons (which are always better than shields), as opposed to just having one. Two magical weapons doing fire damage or whatever always seems to trump everything else.

The idea that dual-wielding is good for roleplaying, etc loses its appeal, to me, when it turns up exactly one third of the time, with silly weapons, rather than just as a rare treat.

[duke o' york]

Rangers get dual-wield for free in NWN, but unless you're going to carry two axes, then I can't think of a good roleplaying reason to use it.
Mind you, the ranger version isn't the same as the "true" dual-wield feat. They have huge drawbacks that fighters who go to the trouble of taking all the relevant feats don't have.

[Skanky Burns]

Some games had really weird implementations. For example, in XCom Apocalypse the best weapon combination in real-time mode was duel-wielding sniper rifles. How that would work I have no idea. The to-hit penalties were more than offset by the weapon's innate accuracy and its lower damage offset by the fact there were two of them per person.