Talking about RPG, weapon and realism,
Here's a really good link :
http://mu.ranter.net/theory/weapons.html
The rest of the website is great too :
it's about cRPG/MMORPG design
By the way, hi to everybody
Ilui, new poster but long time reader
Two Weapon Fighting?
![Officer [Bronze Rank]](./images/ranks/officer1.png "Officer [Bronze Rank]")
The problem with dual wielding in computer games is that it usually gives more advantage than using a sword and shield or even a two-handed weapon, when in fact it's not really that amazing an ability. But it's usually just hacked in to be functional with little regard to other combat techniques, thus making it imbalanced.
If you implemented dual wielding as giving to-hit advantages plus some defensive advantage, there'd be no need for anyone to fight in any fashion other than with two weapons.
If the off-hand is to be brought into the combat equation, it should be across the board, not just in terms of holding a second weapon. I'm just going to list some ideas in point form here, rather than in a paragraph structure as it's purely brain-storming.
- allow shield bashing attacks. if the dual wielder can get some advantage from an off-hand weapon, a shield user should likewise get more than just a defensive bonus. allow for a knock-back bashing attack.
- allow for other weapon styles to be in the game, each with their own advantages. BG2 did this and it worked well. have one-handed specialisation, sword and shield, two-handed, two weapon and so forth, each with advantages. you could do two dual wield specialisations, offence and defense, with the former giving an attack bonus but disallowing any defensive bonus, and the latter doing the reverse. offensive bonus would reflect catching an opponent off-guard and defensive would represent a constant stream of parrying and blocking moves.
- perhaps have off-hand weapon categories, weapons that do damage but are not for parrying, or weapons that are just for parrying and disarming
that way, the player can choose to forego defensive bonuses by not using a shield or parrying weapon but can get an extra attack every other turn or something. or they can accept a lower defensive bonus by not using a shield but using a parrying weapon that has a disarming chance
- give rogues a small chance increase of their special attack firing with an off-hand attack weapon
If I think of more I'll post them. It does mean expanding the combat model significantly, but with the turn-based format, you do have that luxury of offering in-depth combat options, which most turn-based fans really like.
If you implemented dual wielding as giving to-hit advantages plus some defensive advantage, there'd be no need for anyone to fight in any fashion other than with two weapons.
If the off-hand is to be brought into the combat equation, it should be across the board, not just in terms of holding a second weapon. I'm just going to list some ideas in point form here, rather than in a paragraph structure as it's purely brain-storming.
- allow shield bashing attacks. if the dual wielder can get some advantage from an off-hand weapon, a shield user should likewise get more than just a defensive bonus. allow for a knock-back bashing attack.
- allow for other weapon styles to be in the game, each with their own advantages. BG2 did this and it worked well. have one-handed specialisation, sword and shield, two-handed, two weapon and so forth, each with advantages. you could do two dual wield specialisations, offence and defense, with the former giving an attack bonus but disallowing any defensive bonus, and the latter doing the reverse. offensive bonus would reflect catching an opponent off-guard and defensive would represent a constant stream of parrying and blocking moves.
- perhaps have off-hand weapon categories, weapons that do damage but are not for parrying, or weapons that are just for parrying and disarming
that way, the player can choose to forego defensive bonuses by not using a shield or parrying weapon but can get an extra attack every other turn or something. or they can accept a lower defensive bonus by not using a shield but using a parrying weapon that has a disarming chance
- give rogues a small chance increase of their special attack firing with an off-hand attack weapon
If I think of more I'll post them. It does mean expanding the combat model significantly, but with the turn-based format, you do have that luxury of offering in-depth combat options, which most turn-based fans really like.
BasiliskWrangler wrote:
Our take on it: dual weapons shouldn't allow for two full attacks per round. In the real world, the second weapon is often used defensively to block or parry an attack. The difference between using two weapons instead of a weapon/shield combo is that you can switch which hand you parry and attack with. What I mean is, if you have a shield in your left hand and sword in your right, your attack will almost always come from your right hand; your enemy can almost certainly count on that. However, if you are using dual short swords, you may switch your attack between left or right hands, as well as which hand will be parrying. At best this means your enemy may be caught off guard by a sudden change of attack direction. Dual weapons, therefore, is more about improving your ToHit ability as well as giving some of the Armor Rating benefits that a shield may give you. Dual weapons should not be about increasing the rate of attack like most RPGs handle it.
Thoughts?
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
The problem is that low level characters start with the ability to dual wield proficiently. Dual wielding is not something which a beginning character should be able to do effectively. First you would have to be able to wield a sword fairly well. Then you would have to wield the second weapon very well. Then you would have to have developed your dexterity and strength to the point where you can effectively wield two weapons, not an easy thing to do. It should be a goal for a character to achieve. Maybe even a quest to find a master who can teach it to you properly. It would be a weapon style. Most people don't play dual wielding properly, they don't factor in the minuses to hit, and the ease it is to get past a persons guard if they can't pay attention to both weapons properly. Two handed weapons should get bonuses against dual wielding as well. A big heavy weapon tends to go right through the fighting style.
The main advantage is not being able to attack more, but being able to strike at an enemy. It is very hard to block combination attacks. It leaves an opponent more open to critical blows.
The main advantage is not being able to attack more, but being able to strike at an enemy. It is very hard to block combination attacks. It leaves an opponent more open to critical blows.
I am Myt where's the cheese dip.
My very first question would be what are the qualifications for your sources. Are they expierienced fighters, or are they just history buffs who have no real combat expierience.
I have studied martial arts for many years, and I have fought with two weapons. It is not even close to as hard as they claim, with one exception. Dual-wielding two long sword is difficult at best.
I am good while using two short swords or daggers, but I am better while using fighting sticks, they are light and they pack a bruising punch. You should see the welts they cause even through armor.
Now, if we want to get completly technical about things, lighter swords, including most long swords, are useless against heavy armor. They are not heavy enouph to penetrate the armor. This is the reason heavy two-handed weapons were invented along with axes. The heavy, sweeping, slashing style of the axe will cut through heavy Armor. As armor got stronger, weapons got bigger and heavier. So in all reality it does not make any sense to use a long sword against someone in full plate mail. You are better off using an axe, or what some call a can opener, which is kind of like a spiked hammer used to open plate mail like a can.
While two-handed swords are good on the battlefield, they are not good in a smaller fights or skirmishes. They are too slow, unless everyone is wearing full plate armor. To bring done someone using a two handed sword go for the chink in the armor on the arms. With one arm wounded, they can not properly use the sword, and they become easy prey.
Rapiers, on the other hand, are good against no armor or chainmail. The early versions of the rapier is the reason why chainmail became obsolete. The early rapiers were long thin blades that would slip through the links in chainmail.
If we want to get all technical about it, fantasy games are not very realistic, but that is not why we play them. We play them because they are fun, exiciting, and they give us a chance to express sides of ourselves we normally don't get the oppotunity to display.
I have studied martial arts for many years, and I have fought with two weapons. It is not even close to as hard as they claim, with one exception. Dual-wielding two long sword is difficult at best.
I am good while using two short swords or daggers, but I am better while using fighting sticks, they are light and they pack a bruising punch. You should see the welts they cause even through armor.
Now, if we want to get completly technical about things, lighter swords, including most long swords, are useless against heavy armor. They are not heavy enouph to penetrate the armor. This is the reason heavy two-handed weapons were invented along with axes. The heavy, sweeping, slashing style of the axe will cut through heavy Armor. As armor got stronger, weapons got bigger and heavier. So in all reality it does not make any sense to use a long sword against someone in full plate mail. You are better off using an axe, or what some call a can opener, which is kind of like a spiked hammer used to open plate mail like a can.
While two-handed swords are good on the battlefield, they are not good in a smaller fights or skirmishes. They are too slow, unless everyone is wearing full plate armor. To bring done someone using a two handed sword go for the chink in the armor on the arms. With one arm wounded, they can not properly use the sword, and they become easy prey.
Rapiers, on the other hand, are good against no armor or chainmail. The early versions of the rapier is the reason why chainmail became obsolete. The early rapiers were long thin blades that would slip through the links in chainmail.
If we want to get all technical about it, fantasy games are not very realistic, but that is not why we play them. We play them because they are fun, exiciting, and they give us a chance to express sides of ourselves we normally don't get the oppotunity to display.
The trick is finding a balance between reality and gaming fun. Tilting heavily to the side of realism is going to remove a lot of favoured fantasy RPG conventions, like the warrior in full plate with a tower shield stomping around like an unstoppable tank.
Gesion's observations are quite accurate, and I do tend to favour realism, but implementing rules to that degree would be a lot of technical work with the end result of severely restricting what players can equip their characters with.
So a balance should be found that most players can understand, and players need to be offered reasons for making certain choices with characters and those choices should all work, with neither being ultimately better and neither being utter crap.
Gesion's observations are quite accurate, and I do tend to favour realism, but implementing rules to that degree would be a lot of technical work with the end result of severely restricting what players can equip their characters with.
So a balance should be found that most players can understand, and players need to be offered reasons for making certain choices with characters and those choices should all work, with neither being ultimately better and neither being utter crap.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
Very interesting discussion here. I can't help but throw a couple of sticks in the gears though:
Regarding two-handed weapons: These have mostly been used as ceremonial weapons, have a background as improvised weapons (e.g. scythe and mauls), used for duels (with like weapons for both combatants) or as a formation weapon (e.g. polearms). Thus, on the battleground you'd most likely not see any two-handers except from various polearms, or a few low-class weapons in the peasants miltia. One exception is in the late middleages, not long before gunpowder weapons was taken into use, where footmen were sent in with two-handers before a cavalry charge in order to destroy pike formations.
Regarding armor: While an armor will spread out the force of an impact across a larger area and thus reduce the risk of injury (or penetration as it may be), the momentum of the impact is not dissipated. As such, wearing an armor will help you fight longer - but it doesn't make you immune to strikes from a longsword or any other one-handed weapon. It will however slow you down and fighting wearing armor will also cause you to become tired more quickly. Also, every armor has got cracks and joints were you can get a thrust in - and these places are actually some of the most vulnerable spots on the human body (e.g. armpits, elbow joints, groin area or backside of the knees). This is most likely also the reason why armor haven't seen much use in one-on-one duels and the like.
Lastly, about game mechanics: I have never seen hitpoints and health in RPGs as a figure for how much of a physical beating the character can take. I've considered it more of a "luckpool" where every "hit" sustained by the char is a near-miss or wrong move in combat. Critical hits are actual wounds sustained by the char (varying from flesh wounds to disembowelment depending on the severity) which may or may not introduce an adverse effect or penalty. When the health pool runs out the char's luck has run out and they get a mortal wound or some such.
My reason for considering it in this light is that I find the notion of a lvl 18 character getting hit by a speeding truck and just getting up again ridiculous. As such health should signify something else than just the general sturdiness of the character IMO.
If one would consider this notion acceptable or interesting it should be obvious that one attack per round can quite easily describe both the power and speed of a combatant. After all, RPG fighting is an abstraction since in real combat the complexity and spatial character of a conflict is simply too much to describe using a dice and a sheet of paper (or a computer for that matter). Actually it takes many years of training for our brains to be able to perceive, process and react efficiently in such a situation - and THAT if anything is the trademark of a martial artist, not whether he wields a gladius, a claymore, a sai or nothing but his fists!
Regarding two-handed weapons: These have mostly been used as ceremonial weapons, have a background as improvised weapons (e.g. scythe and mauls), used for duels (with like weapons for both combatants) or as a formation weapon (e.g. polearms). Thus, on the battleground you'd most likely not see any two-handers except from various polearms, or a few low-class weapons in the peasants miltia. One exception is in the late middleages, not long before gunpowder weapons was taken into use, where footmen were sent in with two-handers before a cavalry charge in order to destroy pike formations.
Regarding armor: While an armor will spread out the force of an impact across a larger area and thus reduce the risk of injury (or penetration as it may be), the momentum of the impact is not dissipated. As such, wearing an armor will help you fight longer - but it doesn't make you immune to strikes from a longsword or any other one-handed weapon. It will however slow you down and fighting wearing armor will also cause you to become tired more quickly. Also, every armor has got cracks and joints were you can get a thrust in - and these places are actually some of the most vulnerable spots on the human body (e.g. armpits, elbow joints, groin area or backside of the knees). This is most likely also the reason why armor haven't seen much use in one-on-one duels and the like.
Lastly, about game mechanics: I have never seen hitpoints and health in RPGs as a figure for how much of a physical beating the character can take. I've considered it more of a "luckpool" where every "hit" sustained by the char is a near-miss or wrong move in combat. Critical hits are actual wounds sustained by the char (varying from flesh wounds to disembowelment depending on the severity) which may or may not introduce an adverse effect or penalty. When the health pool runs out the char's luck has run out and they get a mortal wound or some such.
My reason for considering it in this light is that I find the notion of a lvl 18 character getting hit by a speeding truck and just getting up again ridiculous. As such health should signify something else than just the general sturdiness of the character IMO.
If one would consider this notion acceptable or interesting it should be obvious that one attack per round can quite easily describe both the power and speed of a combatant. After all, RPG fighting is an abstraction since in real combat the complexity and spatial character of a conflict is simply too much to describe using a dice and a sheet of paper (or a computer for that matter). Actually it takes many years of training for our brains to be able to perceive, process and react efficiently in such a situation - and THAT if anything is the trademark of a martial artist, not whether he wields a gladius, a claymore, a sai or nothing but his fists!
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiace in the circumstance that ones intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexilogical entities.
With all this excellent talk about two-weapon fighting, we can not leave out the usefulness of the off-hand weapon being a shield. There are to types, or classes, of shields. Offensive and Defensive.
The defensive shield is your large heavy movable wall type shield like the tower shield. A defensive shield is used to protect and add defense to the user. They are not good for attacking, with with very few exceptions. About the best you can do with a large shield is a small bash or push. However, there are some smaller shields that are designed to trap a thrusting weapon.
Your offensive shieds are a little lighter and have a large ball or spikes in the center of the shield. These shields do add a little defense, but can pack a punch if you use them right. The center part of the shield is called the shield boss. The edges of the shield can be bladed and used to slash an enemy. The offensive shield needs to be light and easy to move to use properly.
There are so many possiblities with weapon and shield combinations that can make things fun. Yes, we do need to fudge the rules of reality a bit when it come to penatrating armor, otherwise fights would be boring in game.
It would be nice to use a large shield to perform a bull rush to push enemies into traps, pits, fires cliffs, ect. This would add a little tactical know-how to in game battle using the enviroment as a weapon. Likewise, seeing a shield that can be used to trap a thrust from an enemy causing them to use an attack to free the weapon. (when the weapon is caught, the weapon can be freed from the shield by stepping back and stopping the attack). Furthermore, using a shield with spikes can add more damage to a shield when used as a off-hand weapon.
I agree with Gallifrey when he speaks about balance. Even though some weapons are not effective against heavy armor in reality, it does not mean we can not use them in a fantasy RPG. One thing that reality does not have is magic. A nice magical blade can change the rules of combat. So allowing two-weapon fighting with weapons and shieds can be fun and loosly based on realism when armor is involved. As well as allowing two-handed weapons that are usually too large to use properly in combat.
Alowing people a choice in weapons, whether or not it is completly realistic, is a good idea as long as the weapons are basicaly balanced and usable. In other words, no super weapons, and no crap weapons that no one will use.
The defensive shield is your large heavy movable wall type shield like the tower shield. A defensive shield is used to protect and add defense to the user. They are not good for attacking, with with very few exceptions. About the best you can do with a large shield is a small bash or push. However, there are some smaller shields that are designed to trap a thrusting weapon.
Your offensive shieds are a little lighter and have a large ball or spikes in the center of the shield. These shields do add a little defense, but can pack a punch if you use them right. The center part of the shield is called the shield boss. The edges of the shield can be bladed and used to slash an enemy. The offensive shield needs to be light and easy to move to use properly.
There are so many possiblities with weapon and shield combinations that can make things fun. Yes, we do need to fudge the rules of reality a bit when it come to penatrating armor, otherwise fights would be boring in game.
It would be nice to use a large shield to perform a bull rush to push enemies into traps, pits, fires cliffs, ect. This would add a little tactical know-how to in game battle using the enviroment as a weapon. Likewise, seeing a shield that can be used to trap a thrust from an enemy causing them to use an attack to free the weapon. (when the weapon is caught, the weapon can be freed from the shield by stepping back and stopping the attack). Furthermore, using a shield with spikes can add more damage to a shield when used as a off-hand weapon.
I agree with Gallifrey when he speaks about balance. Even though some weapons are not effective against heavy armor in reality, it does not mean we can not use them in a fantasy RPG. One thing that reality does not have is magic. A nice magical blade can change the rules of combat. So allowing two-weapon fighting with weapons and shieds can be fun and loosly based on realism when armor is involved. As well as allowing two-handed weapons that are usually too large to use properly in combat.
Alowing people a choice in weapons, whether or not it is completly realistic, is a good idea as long as the weapons are basicaly balanced and usable. In other words, no super weapons, and no crap weapons that no one will use.
Re: Two Weapon Fighting?
if you will ask me, I can used medieval sword and a knife at the same time.
-
Evnissyen
- Captain
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: July 7th, 2008, 11:28 am
- Location: Elizabeth Warren Land
- Contact:
Re: Two Weapon Fighting?
Wow . . . this thread came a long time before I first logged on, here.
Too late now in respect to Book 2 (highly eager to see what things were added and what things were changed) . . . but to add to something Exodus said about armor:
I've heard it described that in the old days when heavily-plated warriors were struck with a blunt weapon repeatedly, while the armor would prevent broken bones, their body tissue would nevertheless become devastated by the shockwaves transferred to it from the armor.
Too late now in respect to Book 2 (highly eager to see what things were added and what things were changed) . . . but to add to something Exodus said about armor:
I've heard it described that in the old days when heavily-plated warriors were struck with a blunt weapon repeatedly, while the armor would prevent broken bones, their body tissue would nevertheless become devastated by the shockwaves transferred to it from the armor.
Certainty: a character-driven, literary, turn-based mini-CRPG in which Vasek, legendary "Wandering Philosopher", seeks certainties in a cryptically insular, organic, critically layered city.
-
CrazyBernie
- Captain Magnate
- Posts: 1473
- Joined: November 29th, 2007, 12:11 pm
Re: Two Weapon Fighting?
Ha ha, a three year old thread... resurrected by a bot, no less.
-
Evnissyen
- Captain
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: July 7th, 2008, 11:28 am
- Location: Elizabeth Warren Land
- Contact:
Re: Two Weapon Fighting?
Blessed be the Alexis bot.
Certainty: a character-driven, literary, turn-based mini-CRPG in which Vasek, legendary "Wandering Philosopher", seeks certainties in a cryptically insular, organic, critically layered city.