Print

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

[Aspgren]

Methinks you might have gotten your notion of dual-weilding from D&D. 

I did indeed get it from D&D but I know how absurdly unrealistic D&D actually is. Which is why I brought up the more practical example of two knives; if you're robbing say .. a merchant. Then the merchant obviously has cash. Cash buys bodyguards and cash buys weapons.

If we assume that the merchant has bodyguards, would it be a good idea to throw yourself in and try to take both out? no it would not. you'd need a band of criminals to take them on ... but if the merchant is alone the most successful ambush could quite likely be that of a lone bandit.
 Since the object is to snatch a purse in my example it would be MUCH more practical to simply sneak up and cut the purse than to actually draw attention to yourself by threatening the merchant. All men aren't born with good stealth skills however and the best way to keep the merchant from turning around is to threaten his life with a knife. however ... he might very well be armed and his purse might be VERY firmly attached to his belt. To keep money in a purse was the norm and as such it would only make sense to invest in strong materials to keep it safe.. and you'd have a hard time removing it by hand.

 So if you need a knife to remove the purse and you only have -one- that means you have to lower the weapon from his throat and cut his purse. This is an opening for him to either draw a concealed weapon on his own or make a run for it. So you want two.

 ... granted. This is a stretch, it's the only example I can think of when dual-wielding would be practical ... and even in this example it is an impractical idea since it'd be much better to just hit the merchant over the head with a hammer and THEN cut his purse. or force him to lie down and then cut the purse .. or emerge from around a corner with a mallet aimed for his gut, knock him over and THEN take the purse ... you get the idea.

 Although. Impractical or not this IS a fantasy game. I wouldn't mind seeing kobolds or babysnatchers with dual knives ... though it wont work with the babysnatchers will it? they need to carry the baby bag ...

I'd also like to say that those who do use dual-weapons, like tonfa, tend to do so by using one as a shield,

Shields with spikes on them are fine too. 

[Neonivek]

"Swinging a weapon is a full-body activity.  It's not just the weapon that moves, or even the arm."

Depends on the kind of weapon. The Rapier, or at least a few of them, is so deadly to an unarmed target that you can litterally kill someone will the strength in your wrists alone.

Two weapon fighting is either defensive or sneaky or both... but rarely in real life is it offensive, though it has been done.

Plus your all forgetting another style... Single hand weapon fighting. Wouldn't that be even more impractical by the same merits your saying two weapon fighting is?

[Josephus]

We must take note that DF has an essentially Western martial tradition, relying on heavy armor and grappling, as well as armor counterweapons such as warhammers and war picks to defeat armored opponents.

The one martial tradition I know that effectively used dual weapons (the Arnis style that developed in Southeast Asia under Spanish colonial rule), and it worked for several reasons that are inimical to DF's martial tradition:

First, the natives needed weapons that could be concealed or were otherwise innocuous - bolos, which were essentially lighter machetes (or the curved kris swords, in the Muslim-ruled region in the south where concealment was not an issue).

Second, neither the natives nor the constabulary wore armor, as this was well past the time armor had become defunct. In addition, any armor worn in the islands before was made of wood or leather.

Third, the style itself did not depend on armor penetration, severing limbs, or anything the Western tradition relies on. Rather, the style focused on inflicting shallow slashing wounds and rapping the opponent with the handle of the machete/pommel of the sword, eventually causing exhaustion and allowing the fighter to deliver the coup de grace. Armor penetration would have been impossible in any case due to the nature of the weapons used and the lack of strength behind the blows.

So, yeah.

[Aspgren]

"Swinging a weapon is a full-body activity.  It's not just the weapon that moves, or even the arm."

Depends on the kind of weapon. The Rapier, or at least a few of them, is so deadly to an unarmed target that you can litterally kill someone will the strength in your wrists alone.

Two weapon fighting is either defensive or sneaky or both... but rarely in real life is it offensive, though it has been done.

Plus your all forgetting another style... Single hand weapon fighting. Wouldn't that be even more impractical by the same merits your saying two weapon fighting is?

Switching a weapon between hands can be a benefit. If you have a sword and you notice that your opponent is limping on one leg from an old injury, then you have an advantage if you switch hands and attack from his bad side. If you have a sword and shield however, you cannot change hands and you are forced to attack him from his GOOD side.

Besides. Being able to grasp and such is incredibly valuable.

Stuff

In other words dual-wielding could be a trait of minor civilizations and weak tribes? (i say weak because they would be weak when confronted with armor.. but against dwarves with leather armor i can see them being very dangerous)

[Josephus]

Yes, it was nasty against unarmored opponents, and probably would be so against lightly armored ones. But remember that leather is actually very effective as armor.

[Aspgren]

Yes, it was nasty against unarmored opponents, and probably would be so against lightly armored ones. But remember that leather is actually very effective as armor.

Studded boarskin leather? Definitely.

Cat leather made by a dabbling, drunk mason with big fingers? I doubt it. 

[TaintedMustard]

Yes, it was nasty against unarmored opponents, and probably would be so against lightly armored ones. But remember that leather is actually very effective as armor.

Cuir bouilli is, at least against cutting weapons. I'm not sure that's what dwarves are making, though.

[loose nut]

Fantasy games and spinoffs, like WoW, have dual wielding. Dragon Age Origins? Dual wielding, and its kickass in that game. It just does not work in real life.

Eh, Dwarf Fortress is a fantasy game. So the question is, is dual-wielding dwarfy? My answer is no. No, it is not. Dwarves are not ninjas. Your weirder goblin civs, they might dual-wield.

IRL, you don't see it much at all because it's a really specialized way of duelling/ skirmishing, and the tradeoffs don't seem to make it clearly advantageous. For the price of a lot of training, you can have a extra angle of attack, an extra thing to feint with, an extra surface to block with, or you can beat/lock up the opponent's weapon while striking with the other, which seems useful, but that's training you're not doing on other things, and IRL apparently training on the other things works as well or better. For skirmishing you are adding extra weight. For formation fighting, which is most of what historical hand-to-hand combat was, a shield is much much better, because soldiers don't necessarily have control of their placement, and need to block arrows. Also there are the economics of doubling your weapons.

[Sunken]

I can't help but think that wading in, one axe in each hand, no regard for personal safety, is a rather dwarfy thought... in a rage-filled, berserker, you-killed-my-pet-cat sort of way.
In game terms, it could be associated with a slight advantage in offense balanced by a huge disadvantage in defense, which should be enough to ensure it's an exceptional thing and no munchkin freebie.

[Pilsu]

I see little reason to spend time implementing something this impractical and video gamey just because of a couple flimsy historical precedents. Indestructible obsidian swords and whips wielded in serious combat are out of place as is, we don't need more.

Actually, I take that back. Trident daggers and swordbreakers would be useful in battle, capable of things beyond what a shield does, in exchange for lighter defense. Still, I don't think the combat can model threatening with both weapons at once without getting extra strikes per round. It'd take a lot of work to make this work.

[Josephus]

Yes; I'm really just waiting for the combat arc. That should give us a more decent basis for suggestions.

[Pilsu]

So, what about shields? Are bucklers doomed to being useless forever or do they have situational uses as well?

[Medicine Man]

I just have something to say about dual weilding (alright a few short things):

For a start,it would be hard to get a powerful strike in with just one hand but it would be possible but not worth dual weilding

striking with 2 weapons at the same time is like punching with 2 hands at the same time,inacurate and not as powerful as using one with precision and deadlyness.

Swinging 2 long swords would tire you out pretty fast,so your enemy would take advantage of this.

However if it was done with daggers or very sharp blades it could be useful.

[eerr]

So, what about shields? Are bucklers doomed to being useless forever or do they have situational uses as well?

Bucklers are lighter, which is supposed to be a slight advantage in the current system, when chasing down foes.

considering dwarves move at a slower but still reasonable rate with a gigantic heavy stone, it's not much for a wooden/leather shield.

[ungulateman]

Bucklers don't 'use up' a hand, so marksdwavres can still carry bolts in one hand and use a buckler.