Ban dual-wielding

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by 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.

Are you talking about Dwarf Rangers here?

I always considered lots of rangers to be dual weilding swords types.

And lets face it, Dritz is a decent part of the Ranger archetype now, and he dual weilds (and not axes).

Jon Miller

[LDiCesare]

I agree with the op statement that dual-wielding is exaggerated. The samurai type cliche is quite old. Musachi invented that way of fighting, but this was not a particularly popular style of fighting. Even he didn't use it that much, since he often duelled with a single wooden saber.
There are two things I disliked a lot in pen and paper RPGs and then many CRPGs, which were dual wielding and martial arts. Both look flashy, and are made overpowerful with regards to what they would probably have been. Even when reading fantasy books, the dual-wielder is a very uncommon character, but not so in games.

[Blake]

Why dual(or more?)-wielding hand-guns is silly...

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Are you talking about Dwarf Rangers here?

I always considered lots of rangers to be dual weilding swords types.

And lets face it, Dritz is a decent part of the Ranger archetype now, and he dual weilds (and not axes).

Jon Miller

No, rangers are supposed to be woodsmen, not fighters. I'd consider the axe to be a far more suitable weapon for one than the sword.

[Urban Ranger]

It depends on the weapons. The nunchucks, for example, are designed to be used in pairs.

Originally posted by 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.

I reckon that's caused the devlopers' not testing every combo.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Both look flashy, and are made overpowerful with regards to what they would probably have been.

I dunno. If you look at the Western style of sword fights, it is bloody slow compared to martial arts. So you either adjust the speed accordingly, i.e. the martial arts person can at least attack 2-3 times before the knight could make a move, or combine several attacks as one big attack.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by 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.

There's a lot more to the ranger than just a woodsman. There's the archer type, like Robin Hood. There's the stealthy type, that's almost part rogue. There's the type that hones their skills with animals rather than weapons. These are all rangers. A ranger is a defender of the forest, a lover of the countryside. That doesn't mean they're a woodsman. Look at Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings. He's a ranger, but fights with a two handed sword, and is hardly a woodsman.

Indeed, I'd argue that axes aren't the most natural choice for a ranger, unless you want to roleplay a simple woodsman, but once they start gaining levels, skills and feats, how much of a simple woodsman are they then? They have skills that go way beyond chopping wood.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Sandman
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?

I disagree about the other weapon feats. In NWN, weapon feats only affect the chosen weapon, and due to dual wielding meaning your off hand weapon must be light, very few people dual wield the same weapon in each hand. Rapier/long sword and short sword/dagger is the most usual combination I've seen. Moreover, most feats in NWN aren't weapon feats.

And yes, I'm not a fan of fual wielding for free. I would like it that some classes or races have a natural affinity for it, but not to any great extent.

Originally posted by Sandman
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.

I don't agree they're always better than shields. Magical shields rock! In BGII the reflection shield and shield of Balduran had some awesome defensive effects, and the fortress shield added so much to defense that it became better for many characters than dual wielding.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Drogue
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.

Dual wielding in NWN is a good choice for slasher rogues and assassins as well. The primary damage does not matter anyway, a rogue will do with a lowly kukri (or dagger in the beginning) a devastating damage due to the sneak attack bonus, and it's getting even more devastating, if he has two kukris, which hit nearly twice as often.

This is the main reason, why many rogue builds choose at least one ranger level. However, I think they should suck it up and take the feats; they should be golden at least at level 6 and better save their class slots for one level of shadow dancer (hide on plain sight!) and perhaps several assassin levels.

[Drogue]

But surely having multiple attacks still only allows you to do one sneak attack, as then you've come out of hiding and can be seen? Unless they're attacking your henchman, in which case dual wielding rocks.

My slasher rogue dual-wields, however "rogue" might be a bit much, as he has as many levels of fighter as he does of rogue. He's an Elven dexterity fighter with enough rogue levels to not worry about traps, and to make sneak attacks, and enough fighter levels to get dual-wielding feats plus the typical rogue DEX feats like dodge and mobility. Does almost as much damage as Daelen. He was half set up to be like a stalker from BGII

[Harovan]

Yes of course the mob is fighting your henchman, that should be normality. A rogue should not tank, and if he gets a mobs attention, he should turn tail and run, until the mob stops to chase him, then swing back behind the mob again and repeat the game.

Another viable option is to dual wield Namarra rapier and Feyduster, because hitting dazed mobs counts as sneak attack as well, even if in front.

[Drogue]

Exactly what I do. Being half fighter, my character can tank. He has a *huge* parry skill, so fighting a single fighter boss (like Desther) is easy, though it takes a while. Usually for normal monsters my henchman stays behind, as my rogue is ahead scouting, he can just kill them on his own.

I think some of the items end up giving you silly stats though. With what he wears for fighting, he has STR 18, DEX 30, an AC adding an extra 6 or so and due to fighter levels around 90 HP. It's great fun plot and RP-wise, but other than a few key battles, it's not particularly challenging from a being kills standpoint. Loving the reflex saves against fireball - no damage!

[Urban Ranger]

NWN is a silly game because D&D is a silly game.

[Harovan]

Shut up heathen!

I always wondered, what that strange phrase "U R TEH SUX" means. I was leaning to the opinion, that "U R" means "you are", however lately I became convinced, that they mean you.

[Skanky Burns]