Print

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

[Pilsu]

What is this even supposed to mean?

Just a cynical view of the future. If dual wielding goes into the game, how many people do you wager realize you don't actually swing both weapons like in every other game there is? Do you think there won't be any complaining when they learn the truth?

[Neonivek]

What is this even supposed to mean?

Just a cynical view of the future. If dual wielding goes into the game, how many people do you wager realize you don't actually swing both weapons like in every other game there is? Do you think there won't be any complaining when they learn the truth?

Nothing has been decided yet. Also Two weapon fighting does include double swings.

[NW_Kohaku]

Also Two weapon fighting does include double swings.

The problem with that statement is that it essentially ignores 2/3s of this thread, which covered exactly why this was a really, really bad idea.

[Neonivek]

Also Two weapon fighting does include double swings.

The problem with that statement is that it essentially ignores 2/3s of this thread, which covered exactly why this was a really, really bad idea.

Except for 1/3rd of the thread which covered exactly why it was a good idea in certain situations.

It always being a bad idea comes from a odd understanding of how conservation of mass functions. In that using two weapons doesn't remove mass from the person.

Or to put it simply

The Only strike that matters in a fight is the last one

Anyhow as people have said using two weapons to keep an opponent flustered is possible. Not to mention that double strikes are a good attack (they tend to be done at the same time) as the Tonfa has plenty of.

[NW_Kohaku]

Except for 1/3rd of the thread which covered exactly why it was a good idea in certain situations.

Or to put it simply

The Only strike that matters in a fight is the last one

Anyhow as people have said using two weapons to keep an opponent flustered is possible. Not to mention that double strikes are a good attack (they tend to be done at the same time) as the Tonfa has plenty of.

Unfortunately, no.  Most of the other third was talking about guns or how fast someone in full plate would be exhausted or crossbows.

Though there were other people talking about how it was possible or occasionally even preferable to have a second weapon, (mostly for having a spare weapon after you throw the first one) nobody but you has "agreed" about doing two-weapon lunges routinely.

It always being a bad idea comes from a odd understanding of how conservation of mass functions. In that using two weapons doesn't remove mass from the person.

Yeah, you see, the problem is that force is divided between the the total impact area.  Doubling the impact areas (by putting that force onto two seperate weapons) without increasing the force behind them actually divides the amount of force you are putting on any one weapon by two.  Hence, even if we are talking about the suicidal "jump on your enemy weapon-first" approach to swordfighting, you're still just making two attacks that have half the force behind them, each, provided you are landing with both weapons at the same time.

[Neonivek]

However when you divide the impact you recover faster and you get to put your enemy into a grapple (Dang those Tonfa)

Also the attacks don't have "half the force" due to balance. They would have even more force then a single handed weapon.

[Urist McCheeseMaker]

About the crossbow and melee backup weapon thing: I actually meant whether it's a good idea now. Since you can't designate a weapon to be sheathed, could I have a soldier hold both anyway and just trust him to use the right weapon at the right range?

[NW_Kohaku]

However when you divide the impact you recover faster and you get to put your enemy into a grapple (Dang those Tonfa)

Also the attacks don't have "half the force" due to balance. They would have even more force then a single handed weapon.

Let us review Newton's second law.

Force = mass * accelleration.

Or, more to what we are talking about with an impact, its derivative:

Momentum = mass * velocity

If the attack style you have chosen is "leap at an enemy, weapon first", then the amount of momentum behind this attack will be the sum of the mass of your body, weapon, clothing, etc. times how fast you are leaping at your enemy. 

Read this next sentence carefully: This does not change whether you are sticking one weapon out in front of you or two. (Aside from simply having more mass due to an extra weapon, and probably less velocity to match, due to having to chemically generate that force to make that velocity in the first place.  These effects are largely negligible for what we are dealing with, however.)

The momentum that you are applying, if you have two weapons, is therefore divided between the two points of contact that these weapons are impacting the target with.  (The same amount of momentum is hitting, but you are dividing this out against a larger surface area.)

This is why hitting someone with two weapons at once by leaping forward at them is like firing two arrows from one bowstring - you are only generating so much force with your body, and then you are dividing it between two points of impact.  If you want to penetrate an opponent's armor and body, you want to minimize the area of impact per unit of force.

To give another example, this is why someone can lie down on a bed of nails - nails are sharp when there is only one of them, but when you have thousands of them, you distribute your load over so many that you are not generating very much pressure over any one nail in particular.

This is why the notion that leaping forward with two daggers should let you deal the same amount of damage as swinging a battleaxe twice at the same time is pure munchkin mechanics.

[Neonivek]

Your forgetting another law

The law of: You can only put as much force into an object as you are capable of.

You can put more force into One object if you use Another object in the other hand due to how the body is structured. (Your body will compensate otherwise)

It is the reason why I can throw a baseball further then a pebble.

Though there is something people won't complain about though. Two weapons would get more swings in a period of time as one weapon and shield.

Though goodness was Armok Martial arts crazy! I expect some of the crazyness to return.

[NW_Kohaku]

Your forgetting another law

The law of: You can only put as much force into an object as you are capable of.

I can only assume you learned this at the "University of I don't Remember"...

Though there is something people won't complain about though. Two weapons would get more swings in a period of time as one weapon and shield.

Yes, like I said, pure munchkin mechanics.  See Pilsu's post:

I can't wait for the threads of people complaining that dual wielding doesn't work like it does in WoW. Endless whining about wanting a dwarven berserker or other nonsense.

Or, in other words, no, that doesn't happen in real life, nor will it happen in DF.  Not even in the examples you listed.  That's what everyone has been trying to tell you this entire thread. 

"Because it would look really cool for my level 70 dwarf berserker to have double flaming axes" is not a compelling argument, nor is "I once saw a guy in a book with two knives" a compelling argument that bodily leaping forward knives-first repeatedly just so you get "better DPS" is a brilliant tactic in combat.

[Neonivek]

"I can only assume you learned this at the "University of I don't Remember"..."

I only said law for effect.

Yes, like I said, pure munchkin mechanics

No Pilsu's post was about Getting two hits in place of one. Which ISN'T what I am refering to. When you completed an attack with one weapon you can put it into a defensive stance immediately then use the other getting more strike time at the cost of a dedicated defense (AKA Shield). Munchkin wise it is still better to have a Shield. The only difference between the assumed function and the two weapons and the actual use is its increased defensive usage, its throwing capacity, its use in grappling, and its heavy reliance on either two similar weapons or one defensive weapon.

In fact it depends on the strategy whether it gets more hits or not. You are either using one weapon as a backup that can strike or be thrown but is otherwise defensive. Or you have two weapons that can both be used defensively.

Also weaponless would have a similar effect in my mind except with grapples and all out strikes.

As for Leaping forward I don't know why you keep assuming knives... Why would you double punch with knives? That is a horrible idea!

Your arguement is even weaker then that Kohaku. Your saying that because a weapon has a weakness that it is useless relative to another weapon which doesn't share the same weakness which assumes that the weapon has no weakness which is contrary to actuality.

You have to remove the notion that weakness = uselessness.

[NW_Kohaku]

OK, let's take this from the top.

The problem with your view of combat is that you are taking the position that every attack is just as powerful as any other, regardless of windup or how you move your body into the blow.  Therefore, the more attacks you make, the more damage you are going to deal.

Therefore, under your "DPS" view of combat, the ultimate fighting stance looks a little like this:
http://www.collectiondx.com/gallery2/gallery/d/439164-4/Deluxe+Jungle+Master+Megazord-+motorized+arms+swinging+_3_.JPG

[NW_Kohaku]

Also, you might want to go back and re-read the thread from the beginning so you see what these arguments against your proposition actually are.

Say,

Methinks you might have gotten your notion of dual-weilding from D&D.  Just as a little parable for dual-weilding lunge attacks that are just as powerful and accurate and take no longer than regular attacks without doing something stupid like diving forward and landing prone, let me compare this to something else in D&D: Rangers (or anyone willing to spend the feats) get a bow attack where they put multiple arrows on the same bowstring, and fire them all at once.  Yes, up to 4 arrows, all put on the same bowstring firing all at once, with no reduction in damage. 

Too bad that completely breaks all notion of conservation of energy, as the same force in that bowstring being pulled back that would be applied to just one arrow is now being divided between four arrows, meaning you just launched four arrows, each of which have 1/4 the energy and speed, and likely none of the accuracy.  That's even assuming you could pull a bowstring back while holding onto 4 arrows at the same time.  It's pure munchkin mechanics.

Swinging a weapon is a full-body activity.  It's not just the weapon that moves, or even the arm.  To be a proper strike, the rest of the body has to move with it.  This means that to swing both weapons at the same time, you either have to do some foolish forward lunge that largely amounts to leaping forward, and trying to fall onto your enemy, weapons-first, (which, again, leaves you absurdly vulnerable if it doesn't kill your enemy, and such an attack would be highly graceless,) or to be a clapping-like motion that would first require completley exposing yourself to pre-emptive attack, and not allow you to reach forward any.  Even then, the clapping attack still isn't going to be able to attack with full power, much less full accuracy.

[Neonivek]

The problem with your view of combat is that you are taking the position that every attack is just as powerful as any other, regardless of windup or how you move your body into the blow.  Therefore, the more attacks you make, the more damage you are going to deal.

On the contrary unless we are dealing with unarmored combat where a weapon doesn't have to deal full force in order to be effective or maximum effectiveness you don't get the full force of the blow (It is the reason the vast majority of Two weapon fighting examples deal with weapons light Rapiers, Knives, and Tonfas. They arn't dealing with War or armored scenarios. The only weapon I know that is somewhat used two handed, and even then not so much, is the Sai but the Sai was used when the person was otherwise incapable of using a sword and as you can imagine they were at a distinct disadvantage)

Generally speaking for any blow you want to swing with your body rather then just your arms because when you swing with your body you add your weight to the blow. It is the reason why some Boxers are capable of killing people with single punches.

But I am trying to be far seeing and remembering we are dealing with epic characters as well who may not be as bound to the rules of the real world as we are so balance is going to be odd especially when it comes to hand to weapon combat (which I hope is one day viable).

That and a Double strike is a bit more effective then I think you give it credit for when you compare it to a one handed strike because if it is done with only one weapon your shoulders buckel and your full force escapes from the attack.

[cameron]

About the crossbow and melee backup weapon thing: I actually meant whether it's a good idea now. Since you can't designate a weapon to be sheathed, could I have a soldier hold both anyway and just trust him to use the right weapon at the right range?

in fort mode they dont switch as far as i know if they even hold both you could test though just check the combat reports to see if the weapon the guy uses changes

When you completed an attack with one weapon you can put it into a defensive stance immediately then use the other getting more strike time

the issue is with this, where you say you would switch which weapon you would attack with. if you are looking at some of these references to rapier/knife fighting with 2 weapons they use the second defensively, in game the second weapon ought to add more parry opportunities but mess with the persons balance and effectiveness with the first weapon, there could also be opportunities where second weapon could attack like where the first is stuck or the person is stunned or something. this could be modified for differant weapons but for swords or daggers i could see this making sense and it still allows adventurers to choose to use 2 weapons cause they think its cool without unbalancing much.