Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Dual Wield. The best defense is a good offense!

6 (7.2%)

Sword and Board. I'd like to actually survive the battle.

39 (47%)

Twin Shields. My defense is my offense!

4 (4.8%)

Why not both? I carry a weapon and shield in each hand.

14 (16.9%)

Ranged weapons. Sure, I suck at close combat. Too bad you'll never reach me.

3 (3.6%)

Who needs weapons when I have FISTS OF FURY!!!

17 (20.5%)

Total Members Voted: 82

[Blastbeard]

The new combat system allows for multiple attacks on multiple targets at the same time, so there's an actual reason to carry more than one weapon at a time. But before I go full Musashi with a pair of scimitars, I must ask, 'is this viable?'

Let's look at it from a practical standpoint, using an adventurer that wields two weapons without using tricks to get a shield in as well. As an example, let's use a dwarf wielding a steel battle axe and steel war hammer, and let's call him Urist McMountainking.

So Urist Mcmountainking starts out with an axe in one hand and a hammer in the other. What's the difference between him and any other adventurer who starts out with a shield instead of a second weapon? For one, he has nothing to block incoming attacks with. He may still be able to parry attacks, but projectiles and dragonfire will ruin his day. Unless he gets good at dodging or finds effective armor, Urist McMountainking is going to accumulate injuries much faster than a dwarf using the traditional sword and board.
However, he has that second weapon to attack with. Urist McMountainking can strike two separate targets at the same time, or a single opponent with two weapons, in a single turn. He can potentially dish out more damage in a shorter amount of time than someone with just one weapon could, inflicting wounds more frequently and in general just killing faster.

In summary, dual wielding reduces the fighter's defensive ability and results in a greater chance and frequency of injury, but also increases the frequency and number of times and targets upon which a fighter can attack. In layman's terms, you take more damage and give out more.
So, what I'm asking is, it that worth it?

[smjjames]

It'll probably be easier to answer this when the morale issues are fixed and you're really getting piled on.

As for me, I do double wield with shields in each hand.

[MrWiggles]

You should watch Lindy Biege videos on Duel Weilding. You seem to have fallen for a similar trap that most folks into regarding duel weilding. Duel Weilding doesn't let you attack more often. You still have to do the same wind up, for each attack if you want to do anything at all with the swing.

https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige

[Robsoie]

To test combat, go fight night creatures or undead or travel alone at night to trigger the bogeymen, they are the only creatures that seems to not be affected by the broken emotion/reaction system and will actually fight you.

And be sure to not go stealth, this break the emotion/reaction system even more.

[Blastbeard]

You could also get around the emotion troubles by giving everyone natural skill in discipline. Or just do combat testing in the arena where emotion and fear are optional. if you don't have time for that.
I went that route prior to making this thread, and the test dwarf was able to kill two goblins at once with the mountainking setup I describe in the OP. However, due to a lack of dodge skill or armor the test dwarf suffered quite a few injuries before getting that double kill, which led me to question the survivability of a dual wielding strategy and make a thread to figure out the public opinion. Can a sufficiently high dodge skill combined with armor and parrying keep a dual wielder alive?

As for attacking more often with dual wielding, I'm regarding gameplay aspects over realism here. When I tested it in the arena, I noticed I can partially control the timing of when the attack is launched by changing the speed of each individual attack. If two basic attacks with seperate weapons are launched, they appear to connect in the order they were launched, but it may be that they connect simulateously and are just reported in that order. However, a fast attack will connect faster than a heavy attack, even if the heavy attack was launched first. A shocking discovery nobody would have expected, I know, but that basic thing does open up some possibilities for attack flow.
It also shows that dual wielding has no effect on attack speed in Dwarf Fortress at this time. Attack speed appears to be affected by the type of attack, weapon data, and possibly the attackers skill and attributes.

However, the extra weapon is still an extra chance to land a hit. Even a single hit can be fatal in this game, and unfortunately this applies to you as well. Which brings me back to my main concern of survivability. Sure, I may be able to dice the enemy into little pieces, but can I come out of it intact?

[Mohl]

I prefer my 20 shields over any amount of weapons. Dunno, but something is hilarious about seeing a little dwarf running around with 20 dark souls 2 tower shields across his arms. they're bigger than he is!

[vjmdhzgr]

While wielding two weapons does allow better multiattacks, based off of what Toady has said in the past, multiattacks really suck. He actually once said that the main viable use for them would be something like, a legendary adamantine armed adventurer fighting kobolds. I haven't tried them much myself to see if this is true though. At the same time though, not being able to block isn't as much of a downside as you say it is. I've seen many times legendary fighters slapping arrows out of the air, and with two weapons I think the parrying chance would be doubled meaning it's not too bad. Also I've noticed that you left out unarmed fighting from the poll. While I don't do it too much myself, it does seem viable with several of the new mechanics added like being able to stop attacks by say, grabbing the weapon or hand swinging the weapon. Also there's probably a benefit to only entering non lethal rather than lethal combat, even if a lot of the time the other person elevates the combat level.

[Blastbeard]

While wielding two weapons does allow better multiattacks, based off of what Toady has said in the past, multiattacks really suck. He actually once said that the main viable use for them would be something like, a legendary adamantine armed adventurer fighting kobolds. I haven't tried them much myself to see if this is true though. At the same time though, not being able to block isn't as much of a downside as you say it is. I've seen many times legendary fighters slapping arrows out of the air, and with two weapons I think the parrying chance would be doubled meaning it's not too bad. Also I've noticed that you left out unarmed fighting from the poll. While I don't do it too much myself, it does seem viable with several of the new mechanics added like being able to stop attacks by say, grabbing the weapon or hand swinging the weapon. Also there's probably a benefit to only entering non lethal rather than lethal combat, even if a lot of the time the other person elevates the combat level.

Unarmed combat is now a voting option, and I see where you're getting at. The only historical examples of dual wielding I know of were highly skilled individuals who took the time to master wielding one weapon before moving on to two. Dual wielding has seemed like a late-game thing from the start, a new adventurer with low defensive skills and poor equipment would more than likely succumb to attrition before accomplishing anything worthwhile, but once you work up enough skill and/or find some decent armor, that would be a nonissue. With enough skill and some decent protection, anything can be a s simple as fighting kobolds with adamantine.
And there's definitely incentive to not open up with overtly lethal intent with the way the whole escalation thing currently works. If a less-than-No-Quarter fight is going badly, all you have to do is yield and they'll stop attacking so you can escape or get a free hit in. That's probably not how it's supposed to work, but it does work.

[Shizmoo]

I thought only a shield can block dragon fire. If so I would go with shield over dual wielding.

[Adventurer]

It sounds pretty damn cool but no not viable sadly.
Versus "master" type enemies where the duels are super long having POSSIBLY more than one attack is not worth over a chance to possibly block if you didnt dodge in time nevermind monstrous enemies like dragons or forgotten beasts with breaths and stuff.

Maybe if we get powerstances :p

[_elf]

Due to swarming and opponent speed countering clean kiting, defense is more important to survival. If combat was more tactical and less attribute/stat driven, then attacking would be favored.

[Urist Da Vinci]

You slash Human 4 in the right upper leg from behind with your adamantine short sword and the severed part sails off in an arc!
You slash Human 4 in the left upper leg from behind with your adamantine short sword and the severed part sails off in an arc!
The Human 4 falls over.

The Human 7 loses hold of the iron right gauntlet.
You slash Human 7 in the right upper arm from the side with your adamantine short sword and the severed part sails off in an arc!
The Human 7 loses hold of the iron left gauntlet.
You slash Human 7 in the left upper arm from the side with your adamantine short sword and the severed part sails off in an arc!

Some things take effect immediately, and other things wait until all attacks have landed to happen. Unfortunately death happens immediately so you can't simultaneously bisect and decapitate someone.

[Nikow]

Dual wielding is quite good, but only if you have good iron/steel weapon and highskill.

One of my master adventurers, who actualy was overpowered, started with talented swordmanship and dodging. When i got two iron swords i changed to dual wielding, and it's quite good if you're not atacking two targets at once. First thing, you can't atack first, you must provoke your oponent and parry first shot, then make two quickly swings, propobly in hands or foots, and jump out. Dual wielding is for quick fights agains enemies with lower skill aktualy, because they can pary one atack, not other. If they have shield, situation is little different, because they are able to block two swings with one shield. And you screw so hard agains all missles.

So, dual wielding is good agains whole group of goblins, but agains they leader is better to have shield, or really good armor. My sword dancer has no armor at all (just normal clothes) and a lot of scars.

[thvaz]

Toady said there is a penalty to-hit when using multiattacks. Except to hydras.

[Sarrak]

Basically, shield is absolutely needed in just a few situations: dragon or fire-breather, tightly packed group of enemies, unskilled adventurer. Otherwise, with decent skills, you can turn everybody into a bloody mess and parry/dodge all incoming attacks. You will still need armor, though.