new class idea? 2 x 1h sword

[LordBerenger]

I'll have to remember this vid for the next 100 times this evil thread appears.

Also, why just stop at 2 swords??? Since we're already clearly so invested in anime logic of 'dual wielding so cooool and practical'

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Mmm, Medieval fighter game...

HEY! Roronoa Zoro is an one of a kind. No copycats thx

[Adamar]

Why do people think that dual weilding didn't exist? Why the hate?

[Osiris]

because there is very little historical fact when it comes to Dual wielding lets have it!!! Itz cool hollywood/anime says so is the usual crap.

It has virtually no advantage over using a weapon with both hands. Its pretty much only seen in martial arts or rapier-dagger combo both in a duel situation. To put it in crpg would mean the secondary weapon would just act like a terrible shield.

[Tibe]

Meh, why not give people dual wield? But significantly reduced damage and lowered speed of swings when doing so. If some players want to be useless morons while hoping to look cool on the field of battle, it should be allowed. This is a free land afterall and everybody has the right to do their retarded shit.

[Adamar]

because there is very little historical fact when it comes to Dual wielding lets have it!!! Itz cool hollywood/anime says so is the usual crap.

The parrying dagger was very real, no? If a man didn't have a 2handed weapon, or the skill to use one, its perfectly logical that he would have something else in his left hand.

[Osiris]

The parrying dagger was very real, no? If a man didn't have a 2handed weapon, or the skill to use one, its perfectly logical that he would have something else in his left hand.

I forgot Parrying daggers were wide spread on medieval battlefields and before. We don't have rapiers so we don't have parrying daggers, they don't fit cRPG and if you want one replace a shield image with a dagger because you wont get double attacks any time soon.

[Nightmare798]

I forgot Parrying daggers were wide spread on medieval battlefields and before. We don't have rapiers so we don't have parrying daggers, they don't fit cRPG and if you want one replace a shield image with a dagger because you wont get double attacks any time soon.

Parrying daggers were practically slightly longer ordinary daggers. I would bet that before the advent of rapier, they used long daggers in conjuction to arming swords. However not on battlefield. Dagger and sword is mostly centered around duels. If I wanted to have something else besides sword in my hands, I would take shield.

[Butan]

Dagger and sword is mostly centered around duels. If I wanted to have something else besides sword in my hands, I would take shield.

So every melee should have a shield, because its the smartest thing to do?
Thats like the "get a shield" argument, but in the sense that we should remove content of the game to not let players decide for themselves if they want survivability or not.

I forgot Parrying daggers were wide spread on medieval battlefields and before. We don't have rapiers so we don't have parrying daggers, they don't fit cRPG and if you want one replace a shield image with a dagger because you wont get double attacks any time soon.

Rapiers arent the only usable weapon with a off-hand parrying dagger. Nobody asked for double attacks if you read the thread.
Also the "not fit cRPG" argument is weak, cRPG have ninjas and exotic weapons may I remind you.

[Nightmare798]

So every melee should have a shield, because its the smartest thing to do?
Thats like the "get a shield" argument, but in the sense that we should remove content of the game to not let players decide for themselves if they want survivability or not.

Nah the point was: If I knew I will fight in a conflict which counts several tens/hundreds of combatants, I would rather take an arming sword and shield, than arming sword and dagger.  It was not meant to be a comment on any gameplay mechanic or feature whatsoever.

[Butan]

Nah the point was: If I knew I will fight in a conflict which counts several tens/hundreds of combatants, I would rather take an arming sword and shield, than arming sword and dagger.  It was not meant to be a comment on any gameplay mechanic or feature whatsoever.

Then I agree with you completely. But since in cRPG your life isnt on the line, you see no shielders everywhere. Thus except if we want to push a real life battlefield experience, why not add a off-hand gameplay? Which exact gameplay is up to debate.

[CrazyCracka420]

The parrying dagger was very real, no? If a man didn't have a 2handed weapon, or the skill to use one, its perfectly logical that he would have something else in his left hand.

Sure in a duel, or when they were caught off guard and ambushed.  I doubt they'd go into battle using their second hand on a dagger rather than using a shield, or holding a weapon with two hands.

[Osiris]

point is moot. The devs are not going to change the whole combat system to allow offhand combat for a couple of people, at best you will get a dagger that acts like a buckler.

[Butan]

point is moot. The devs are not going to change the whole combat system to allow offhand combat for a couple of people, at best you will get a dagger that acts like a buckler.

Would be cool 

[Nightmare798]

Then I agree with you completely. But since in cRPG your life isnt on the line, you see no shielders everywhere. Thus except if we want to push a real life battlefield experience, why not add a off-hand gameplay? Which exact gameplay is up to debate.

Well I am not opposed to dual wielding at all. However I am more concerned about devs being able to pull off something like that.

Also, I would like to see some different weapon stances.

[Sniger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphallia