Valaeryn 说:
Agreed. :3 We've been without a valid argument on the pro-side of dual wielders for a while.
-ahem- inb4thejinx
Well, here's one to close the debate. No one has argued against the widespread historical use of the Sword/Buckler combo, also in war, during the time period modeled by the game. A buckler is a kind of shield, granted, but it's use could not be accurately modeled in M&B making it a shield becaue
1) It's useless against arrows or other projectiles, too small
2) You can't cover behind it, but have to make active parries
3) It was used to attack, although this is also true for "normal" shields. The buckler in particular was used more offensively than the later off-hand dagger when combined with an arming sword.
For those reasons, bucklers could only be properly represented by introducing dual-wielding mechanics into the game. Those would also allow normal shields to be more acurately represented. Now, I would like all those "gritty realism" defenders to come up with a reason why this particualr piece of reality should be left out, all in the interest of "greater realism".