Print

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

[Darthania]

Eyy! Little question - if a weapon isn't 2-Handed is there an advantage to multigrasping it? I looked on the wiki but found nothing... Thanks!

[squeakyReaper]

You can either hold a weapon, or can't.  Multigrasp is pointless in a world where you can wear fifteen shields on your right arm and three whips, two axes and another shield in your left.

[Darthania]

Aww. So no benefits to having a katana multigrasped. What are the benefits of having one in each hand?

[squeakyReaper]

You have more to chose from while attacking.  You can literately have several katanas in each hand, and no one knows how they're held.  But if you have, say, a spear and a sword at the ready, your character picks which would be most accurate and relatively damaging (not necessarily the best choice) while swinging.  I don't know if reach comes into account, so I don't think there's a distinct advantage to having one in both hands as opposed to both in one, though I'm not sure.

[Darthania]

Awesome duel-wielding it is then. Cheers.

[Knigel]

If holding an item by itself makes you multigrasp it, you're going to have a penalty in both accuracy and power if you try to wield it with one hand.

Dual wielding is only a good choice if both weapons can be used one-handed without penalty, and even then it generally inferior to one-handed weapon+shield.

[minno]

If holding an item by itself makes you multigrasp it, you're going to have a penalty in both accuracy and power if you try to wield it with one hand.

Dual wielding is only a good choice if both weapons can be used one-handed without penalty, and even then it generally inferior to one-handed weapon+shield.

Which is inferior to 10x weapons and 10x shields, but I consider that an exploit and don't use it.

I usually limit myself to only 1 1-handed item per hand, or a 2-handed weapon and a buckler.  It just seems more realistic to use a smaller shield with my big sword.

[Knigel]

If holding an item by itself makes you multigrasp it, you're going to have a penalty in both accuracy and power if you try to wield it with one hand.

Dual wielding is only a good choice if both weapons can be used one-handed without penalty, and even then it generally inferior to one-handed weapon+shield.

Which is inferior to 10x weapons and 10x shields, but I consider that an exploit and don't use it.

I usually limit myself to only 1 1-handed item per hand, or a 2-handed weapon and a buckler.  It just seems more realistic to use a smaller shield with my big sword.

As far as I know, even using just a buckler takes up full use of that hand, so you're still getting penalties (though some adventurers are big/strong enough to wield normally 2-handed weapons with one).

[minno]

If holding an item by itself makes you multigrasp it, you're going to have a penalty in both accuracy and power if you try to wield it with one hand.

Dual wielding is only a good choice if both weapons can be used one-handed without penalty, and even then it generally inferior to one-handed weapon+shield.

Which is inferior to 10x weapons and 10x shields, but I consider that an exploit and don't use it.

I usually limit myself to only 1 1-handed item per hand, or a 2-handed weapon and a buckler.  It just seems more realistic to use a smaller shield with my big sword.

As far as I know, even using just a buckler takes up full use of that hand, so you're still getting penalties (though some adventurers are big/strong enough to wield normally 2-handed weapons with one).

I know, I just use it as a sort of balancing tactic.  I can kill anything that bleeds and most things that don't anyways, so I can afford to limit myself.

[sirquote]

Who wouldn't want to slam enemy's to a pulp with three wolf carcasses in each hand.

Just like Orok Krumstul the Orc maiden.

[gtmattz]

Poasting to say that when I saw the topic in the list, I first saw 'MULTIPASS!', and clicked and was dissapointed. 

[Knigel]

I know, I just use it as a sort of balancing tactic.  I can kill anything that bleeds and most things that don't anyways, so I can afford to limit myself.

Is that why you use a buckler instead of a shield (which literally only blocks half as often)?

[Darthania]

I think you forget that 2H's have a higher chance to block than normal swords with a high Swordsman skill. A buckler sounds right. Quick thing, 10 weapons per hand - no. 3 wolf carcasses - OK for me for some reason... Maybe it's because I can viably picture it. 

[sirquote]

I think you forget that 2H's have a higher chance to block than normal swords with a high Swordsman skill. A buckler sounds right. Quick thing, 10 weapons per hand - no. 3 wolf carcasses - OK for me for some reason... Maybe it's because I can viably picture it. 

Just picture a large Orc Bitch, Tearing through the open plain, charging at full might and winding her main arm like a flail with multiple blood soaked and mutilated wolf bodies. 

Time to run the other way.

[Knarfle]

Giving this a bump for verification. Is it still true?

I have a fondness for halberds and other pole weapons and was wondering if I'd be better with or without my shield.