Dual wielding, pros and cons why it wasn't used inside a specialized unit.

[Mamlaz]

The issue is that you are limited to movements which do not pass your center line, otherwise your swords will get in the way, not because of your swings, but because of your opponents actions, which will block or parry one of the strikes and halt it in a position that messes up your chances of delivering the second sword strike.

Strangely enough, I believe the KoH movie did it far better than GoT, simple and straight movements all while pushing towards the enemy;

http://webmshare.com/zMmJW

 

[Bromden]

I never had such problem. Wherever one of my weapons are, there are plenty of room for the other to do something, and I won't just leave the other one to rest there after it got blocked or parried.

 

[RC-1136]

I never had such problem. Wherever one of my weapons are, there are plenty of room for the other to do something, and I won't just leave the other one to rest there after it got blocked or parried.

What kind of personal experience are you talking about? Escrima, HEMA, LARP, Reenactment-Battles, Battle of the Nations-Stuff?

 

[Bromden]

Officially it's iaido, although kenjutsu might be a more proper name for it. Been doing it for 16 years now. There was a year about dual wielding, and it also surfaces from time to time. We also have "battles" where we can try out and use what we learned in mass fight situations.

 

[Mamlaz]

So the long hilt/grip of your katana wasters really do not get in the way when using both one handed?

 

[Bromden]

Of course not. One of the common rookie mistakes is when the guy won't release the grip with one of his hands in situations where he should. You can cut in any and all directions with a one handed hold.

 

[RC-1136]

Officially it's iaido, although kenjutsu might be a more proper name for it. Been doing it for 16 years now. There was a year about dual wielding, and it also surfaces from time to time. We also have "battles" where we can try out and use what we learned in mass fight situations.

Interesting. Do you have any experience with shields? On grounds of my perspective coming from HEMA and some Gladiator-stuff I would always grap a shield before picking up a second weapon.

 

[Bromden]

I have no experience fighting with or against shields, if we don't count human shields. I'd try to be inventive against one.

 

[AreJohn]

More weapons means more attacks, which in turn means more dice rolls. It's a win-win.

 

[Mamlaz]

Found a passage from a viking saga describing some dual wielding nut;


Hann hafði spjót í annarri hendi en í annarri sverð en engan skjöld.

He had a spear in one hand and a sword in the other, but no shield.

Brennu-Njáls saga, ch. 146

 

[kweassa]

There are weapons for duels and small scale fights, and then there are weapons for wars.

In an environment where the larger the number of forces, the more importance formations and collective tactics gained, I wouldn't think of arming soldiers with duel-wield weapons. A trusty spear and shield would do far better.

 

[Jhessail]

If only they had had some really superior blades to dual wield, like these:

 

[Vraelomon]

Looks like a hunter weapon.

 

[Jhessail]

Everything is a hunter weapon.

 

[rapier17]

If your opponent has a heavier weapon you can also bind using both of yours in that X style guard you see people use in films, then control their weapon with one of theirs while closing the distance to kill them with the other.  Richard Marsden does a good explanation of this and some of the issues with dual wielding on another Skallagrim video.

I'd never do that stupid 'X' thing. Never, ever, ever, ever. Never. Because you'd still be under their weapon and if your parry fails, is too slow, is too low, and their weapon gets through, you'll be struck, you need to recover your weapons and in that time you're open and defenceless. Rapier treatise intends to place the person's body in a safe position where they cannot be struck, or at the very least it is hard to do so.

Dual-wielding comes into its own, as Mamlaz says, with thrusting weapons, which was why it became a viable option with the rapier. As the rapier developed, with a longer, more slender blade, with an emphasis on using the tip for thrusting, so we see the rise of offensive companion items - whilst the cloak & buckler would remain, the dagger (notably the specialised main-gauche) and a second rapier rose to prominence. Having dual-wielded with rapiers, as part of studying di Grassi & Capo Fero with a local club quite a few years ago, the big issue I found is that people forget about the second weapon. Personally I seem to be very mindful of the fact that I have two weapons and used them both consistently, whilst other people start using both and then their 'off-hand' starts to drop lower and lower until it is doing nothing.

 

[Kissaki]

The advantage of dual wielding is that you can make two attacks at the same time, and that you have two tools for defense.

Let me stop you right there. Even with two weapons, you will only be making one attack at a time. You don't see boxers throwing more than one punch at a time either, in spite of the fact that they are "dual wielding" fists. Simple reason: hips can only rotate one direction at a time.

Now, you could be making two attacks in short order, but what you'd be doing is defending with one and attacking with the other. For that matter, you are just as much "dual wielding" if you are using a shield: a shield can both attack and defend, and together with the weapon in your primary hand, attacks and defences come in short order. An additional bonus with the shield is that you can use it to mask your attack with the other hand.

This was the style of many fencers, and the style of Musashi afaik.

Musashi trained with two swords, but in his own words, this was just to train the skill of using a single sword, one handed. He never fought with more than one weapon in any of his duels.

 

[Almalexia]

You don't see boxers throwing more than one punch at a time either, in spite of the fact that they are "dual wielding" fists. Simple reason: hips can only rotate one direction at a time.

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Fighters-only Monkey Grip feat" bull**** that's going on in the d20 system right now. Monks deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself bought a genuine monk in Tibet for 24 goats (that's about $3) and have been practicing with him for almost 2 years now. I can even break slabs of solid steel with his simple technique.

Tibetan monks spend years working on a single finger and exercise it up to a million times to produce the finest hands known to mankind.

Tibetan hands are thrice as strong as European hands and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a knight's gauntlet can cut through, a monk's hands can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a monk could easily decapitate a knight wearing full plate with a half-hearted uppercut.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Tibet? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined monks and their fists of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted men with hands first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Fists are simply the best weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

You had me at "24 goats for $3". Brb organising a massive neighbourhood barbecue.

 

[Mamlaz]

Let me stop you right there. Even with two weapons, you will only be making one attack at a time.

Not if you are thrusting though.

You can easily thrust with two swords at the same time.

Anything a knight's gauntlet can cut through, a monk's hands can cut through better.

Perhaps, but you must understand, game balance is more important than realism.

 

[Kissaki]

Let me stop you right there. Even with two weapons, you will only be making one attack at a time.

Not if you are thrusting though.

You can easily thrust with two swords at the same time.

You can, but you wouldn't. One of the nice things about the thrust is the range, but by thrusting with both hands at the same time you are essentially eliminating your range. You do not face your opponent square on, except in some instances wielding a single sword two-handed - but even then one shoulder is going to be in front of the other most of the time. And in order to maximise the length of your lunge, your shoulders need to be aligned to a straight line pointing at the target. This means you cannot thrust with your off hand even if you wanted to. And again, there's the matter of torque: like with cuts, a thrust is going to be powered by the legs, which implies hip rotation. You can only rotate them in one direction at a time, even in a thrust.