Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

Users who are viewing this thread

Sir Rivenal

Grandmaster Knight
Bunny Cookie Canada said:
Do not look here said:
I guess term 'shieldwall' comes from wall of abandoned shields left behind when two formations met. It kinda makes sense now.

Nine times out of ten it was a matter of how quickly each side could discard their shields.
Already have. but is is nice ? ı don know.


Dual wielding would be nice because I could have throwing knives in one hand and a sword in the other. Or throwing spears in both hands and spam a bastard with spears  :fruity:


I think dual wielding would be pretty nice, with due balancing like not being able to ride with it etc.

Also, i posted because i wanted to keep this thread alive. LONG LIVE THE THREAD.

Arthur Dayne

The idea that shields were always superior (for battlefield purposes) only lasts until plate armor is introduced. For those that could wear it, they ditched the shields and went for two-handed weapons, a single one-handed weapon and one free hand, etc.. In that context, someone dual-wielding could be effective, but few had the ability to do so. It was only widely practiced in some parts of Italy—there the masters did considered it an advanced form.

A lot of suggestions have been made in regards to how dual-wielding should be implemented. I actually think it would require two extra buttons for blocking since dual-wielding should add plenty of extra complication. One would also receive speed reduction similar to using shields—varying with the types of weapons used. The idea is that the style will take a lot of skill to be effective, and only works if one is wearing top-of-the-line armor outside of dueling.


OnionKnight said:
Dual wielding would be nice because I could have throwing knives in one hand and a sword in the other. Or throwing spears in both hands and spam a bastard with spears  :fruity:
The issue I have with duel wielding throwing weapons is that throwing objects puts you off balance, so you wouldn't be able to throw two objects at once, thereby making duel wielding throwing weapons useless. Try throwing two rocks at once, or, two sticks like a javelin in your case.


That could work, if you practice the choregraphy with your buddies a lot beforehand. Otherwise, first rule of fighting multiple opponents: don't ever ****ing stay in the middle. Ever. Because you'll die. Very quickly.


Hence the choreography part. There's nothing serious or effective in that gif.

Edit: protip: if your opponent does that (double) spinning, attack into it. He'll die.

The third worst offence he did is that totally unnecessary kneeling.


I'm not pissed, I'm just critical. Also, you can never know who is joking or who is saying the dumbest **** seriously in this thread.


Yeah duel weapons could defiantly work very well on some troops. I could see storming these troops doing well at seiging.




Because that looks intimidating but doesn't have control or effect? Because the number of truly ambidextrous people in the world is seemingly lower than 1%? Because it's really hard enough to get the right number of spins for the distance when you throw a knife with your dominant hand and nothing disrupting your balance? So sad I've never seen a throwing dagger(from those magic bags of holding) hit hilt first, lol.

Yes, it's super cool looking in anime to be slicing and dicing with both hands independently running straight through armies, but someone with a sword breaker or a main gauche as secondary weapon was using a very different style of fighting than that. I don't mean to rain poop on the parade, and THIS IS A GAME, but I don't want it to be some naruto game or whatever. I admit, IRL intimidation factor is a great thing for your weapons to have, but kind of hard to use intimidation on bots. Also, IRL you don't want to take ANY hits so would be more a tactic of trying to tie up your opponents weapon with one of yours and then...

It's a neat way to fight, some people actually did it, and games should be fun, so yeah why not have a form of dual wielding? As long as it's not the "whirlwind of death" overpowered cartoon stuff(which was fine in Max Payne or Lord of the Rings) which doesn't fit a semi-realistic/historical setting. It would make some sense to me if dual wielding involved really HEAVY skill/proficiency and maybe even attribute investment to develop. If you want to invest the years to become a blades master instead of a leader of men or whatever else, that should be your option in a wide open game, sure. Work your way up perhaps, being proficient with one dagger size weapon defensively in your off hand to gain strength and/or speed in your non-dominant hand, learn to get into a weapon bind and maybe eventually get to the point of flurries of strikes if it's not too OP for the bots. Im not saying it might not be fun to turn the damage down to easy add bullet time and dual-weilding cyclone of doom skill-thats just not M&B.

For all the enthusiasts go find two sticks and play a bit, notice each time you smack yourself or your weapons by accident. Consider if you just hit yourself in the face with a sword instead of a stick....

Personally I'd rather have left handed warriors in the world first.


Sergeant at Arms
Dual wielding would be pretty sick but for it to work well and be "realistic" youd be able to swing from two directions at once, or swing one direction then another direction very quickly which would make it very OP

Zombie Warrior

Sergeant Knight
The only thing very OP about dual wielding is dual wielding sword pommels. It ends rightly two enemies at the same time.
Edit: You can also triple wield shields while dual wielding sword pommels, making you an invincible warrior who can end rightly two opponents at the same time.
Top Bottom