Dual Wielding

[Vulpus]

Think it'll be in Avadon? It was pretty significant in A6 but not exactly gamebreaking though.

[Randomizer]

No, Jeff went with a modified Geneforge game engine and that one doesn't have dual wielding. *sigh*

[Tirien]

Aww... No more buzzsaw party for me. I feel depressed now.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

No, Jeff went with a modified Geneforge game engine and that one doesn't have dual wielding. *sigh*

Modified could include modified to include dual wielding (among other things) right?

[Slawbug]

This is an omission that I simply don't understand. Dual-wielding isn't something that weirdos on the forums wish for while complaining about Avernum 4, etc. This is something that 13-year-old boys LOVE! People really, really love dual-wielding. So why not include it?

[Niemand]

Agreed. It's nice way to give the player another choice (and another trade-off), and it's not a feature that ought to require sweeping changes in the game engine.

 

The only possibly plausible argument I can think of against it is that if one is being picky about the details of character graphics, allowing dual-wielding necessitates the inclusion of extra set of graphics, at least for player characters. Creating graphics is, as I understand, a fairly big burden for Spiderweb, but I'm not sure whether the marginal cost from this would be high enough to make a significant difference, or whether Jeff would view the inclusion of the feature as really requiring the extra graphics.

[Alorael at Large]

The graphics are indeed the likely to be the big obstacle, but the balance isn't trivial either. Given how differently skills work in Avadon, it's possible Jeff needed one game to get the basics right and will reintroduce dual-wielding in the future. I wouldn't count on it, though; it's really not easy to slot into the system.

 

—Alorael, who could see a single class being introduced in the sequels for dual wielding. A simple damage versus defense tradeoff wouldn't work, but a melee damage class versus other choices might.

[Txgangsta]

Well, Jeff already has an engine with dual wielding. I wouldn't be surprised if this showed up in more of his future games either.

 

Also, he added dual wielding to the Avernum engine. He could very well add it to his Geneforge engine.

[Vulpus]

So we're back to the shield vs. pole weapon concept. Unless the shadowwalker class has something new and completely unique?

[Tracer Bullet]

How about bows and arrows? There won't be any batons anymore... (Sorry, I have no Avernum experience to draw upon)

[*i]

Part of the issue with balancing a second weapon with a shield is the inherent asymmetry between killing your target faster, therefore ending damage permanently, versus suffering a little less damage, on average, each turn for longer. The former is almost always a better choice from a game theoretic perspective.

 

To balance this, there needs to be a significant investment in terms of skill points to make dual wielding worthwhile. Part of the problem as of A6 is that investment is relatively minor and does not scale with the power of the individual weapons -- you reach a threshold and the need for further investment stops. A possible way to address this is to make dual wielding dramatically worse as weapon power increases unless some investment in the dual wielding skill is made to offset it.

 

Also, there really needs to be a reworking of shields if you want to counterbalance dual wielding. I would make shields more like parry, blocking all damage with a chance of riposte. Investments in defense and parry would increase the odds of this block occurring. Also, give shields a good chance of blocking projectiles, both physical and magical, and we might have something worth employing.

[Tcheedchee]

Originally Posted By: *i

Also, there really needs to be a reworking of shields if you want to counterbalance dual wielding.

Taking these features into consideration, Spiderweb should add the ability to unbalance adversaries with a good shove of the shield. (Like in DaO. Liked and used it a lot.)

And then axes should be introduced (at least in Avadon 2) because with axes you can disarm shieldbearers. That one is to be read in B. Cornwell's "The Lord of the North" and appeals to me as well.

I think in A6 the dual wielding was a nice variation, but not really decisive for anything.

[goblindolf]

Originally Posted By: *i

Part of the issue with balancing a second weapon with a shield is the inherent asymmetry between killing your target faster, therefore ending damage permanently, versus suffering a little less damage, on average, each turn for longer. The former is almost always a better choice from a game theoretic perspective.

Couldn't you say the same for 2 handed weapons vs 1 hand and shield?

I like the idea of blocking though

[Vulpus]

There should be more flexibility with the system though, instead of having the predicament of more damage instead of more defense. The idea of implementing shoving would make the game more interesting. I like =]

[Alorael at Large]

The difference between one-handed weapons and two-handed weapons in Spiderweb games has never been immense. It's often been a little bit more noticeable than the difference in defense with and without a shield, but still not a big deal over the course of the game. Dual wielding pushes the damage difference over a big threshold. It could be redesigned so that the damage actually doesn't go up that much, but then what's the point?

 

—Alorael, who thinks that making shields better is actually a reasonable idea. The new skill system resembles Dragon Age more than it resembles other Spiderweb games, and choosing between a shield tree and a two-weapon tree (like Dragon Age) could work well.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Telluric Black Oceans

The new skill system resembles Dragon Age more than it resembles other Spiderweb games, and choosing between a shield tree and a two-weapon tree (like Dragon Age) could work well.

I've never played Dragon Age, so the skill system sounds like the one from Dungeon Siege 2. I never even used dual-wielding on that game, shields were just to useful.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

This is an omission that I simply don't understand. Dual-wielding isn't something that weirdos on the forums wish for while complaining about Avernum 4, etc. This is something that 13-year-old boys LOVE! People really, really love dual-wielding. So why not include it?

I don't like dual-wielding because it's an "innovation" that has occurred literally ONLY in video games, because it's cool, yet horribly horribly impractical- it breaks immersion because I know it's impossible. This gets me especially angry when it's people somehow dual-wielding pistols. The pistol in the left hand would almost never ever hit, and the detracted accuracy in the right would mean that you'd be using up twice the bullets and hitting at less than your original rate. Grrr.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

I don't like dual-wielding because it's an "innovation" that has occurred literally ONLY in video games, because it's cool, yet horribly horribly impractical- it breaks immersion because I know it's impossible. This gets me especially angry when it's people somehow dual-wielding pistols. The pistol in the left hand would almost never ever hit, and the detracted accuracy in the right would mean that you'd be using up twice the bullets and hitting at less than your original rate. Grrr.

I feel your pain. I almost never dual-wield in games. It has been used in real life before though, but the off-hand weapon would usually be something small, like a dagger. Anything bigger is just impractical, and without a ridiculous amount of training, your going to likely end up cutting yourself. The only time you really see actual dual-wielding these days is on crappy movies and video games. And that most terrible of evils, manga. -shudder-

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

I don't like dual-wielding because it's an "innovation" that has occurred literally ONLY in video games, because it's cool, yet horribly horribly impractical- it breaks immersion because I know it's impossible.

I agree with Dantius on this one. The thing is that the MAJORITY of the combat physics in every RPG break immersion if you take ten seconds to think about how bleeding, shock, traumatic strikes and cutting wounds affect the human body, or about how weapons are related to the damage they do, or about how chaotic melee combat is, and so on. Dual-wielding, despite being more absurd than the combat model for single-wielding and even shields, is still less incredulity-inducing (or should be) than everything above.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

I'm a bit more sympathetic toward dual wielding in works of fiction. One reason is the one you cite here: there are actual martial forms that involve wielding two weapons. In fairness to video games, some have been employing the more realistic medium weapon and small weapon style: both the aforementioned Dragon Age and most D20 systems limit one to small weapons in the off hand, or apply a very steep penalty for using larger ones, until one has a very high level skill. And of course at this point one is very nearly superhuman anyway.

 

The other reason I find it more defensible is that the great majority of enemies people have fought in real life are other people. People are glass cannons. Even a glancing blow in a non-critical area from a gun or sword can incapacitate a person, and a good hit will likely kill us. Armor can help, but it's easier to get through that with a strong single hit than multiple weak ones. Monsters in fiction are often much larger than humans. If one is fighting a bunch of fantasy beasts the size of rhinos, the ability to inflict a single, accurate, decisive strike becomes less important, while the ability to hit more times in ways that at least do damage becomes more so.

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

If one is fighting a bunch of fantasy beasts the size of rhinos, the ability to inflict a single, accurate, decisive strike becomes less important, while the ability to hit more times in ways that at least do damage becomes more so.

I don't understand this logic at all, especially given your earlier assertion. From what I understand, anything less than a lethal blow on a large animal is a only good for making it angry.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Unless one is inhumanly accurate, doing non-lethal damage and only "making it angry" are foregone conclusions. It still depends on the thickness of the creature's hide (as per my point about armor before), but the basic idea is that there are many creatures in fantasy settings that are difficult to kill simply because they have so much body. Trolls/ogres (provided they aren't wearing armor), giant versions of normal animals, even some versions of dragons. If you're going to have to hit something a substantial number of times to kill it, having the ability to hit more often is a clear advantage in a way that it wouldn't be against a human, who would go down after one good hit.

[Dintiradan]

I've had a dream of playing a halfling ranger in a 3.0 D&D campaign for a long time -- a halfling ranger with Monkey Grip and Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword). Effective? No. Hilarious? Yes.

[Alorael at Large]

I've actually always thought that fighting something much larger would be much like fighting a wild boar, but more so. You'd want a spear, and you'd want it to have something to keep big things from collapsing back onto you.

 

—Alorael, who notes that Miyamoto Musashi, probably the single most famous swordsman, literally wrote the book on dual wielding. It apparently can be done and done well in real life.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Cold and alone and hungry

I've actually always thought that fighting something much larger would be much like fighting a wild boar, but more so. You'd want a spear, and you'd want it to have something to keep big things from collapsing back onto you.

—Alorael, who notes that Miyamoto Musashi, probably the single most famous swordsman, literally wrote the book on dual wielding. It apparently can be done and done well in real life.

When you're good enough at swordsmanship that you can win a duel against a highly trained samurai whilst wielding nothing more than a broken oar, I'd imagine that you could manage two weapons at once.

[Lilith]

to be fair it was a really long oar

 

also obligatory kate beaton reference

[A less presumptuous name.]

I went to a black sash test for a friend in Kung Fu, and the head of the school and one of the older black sashes did a demo. The head was dual wielding swords. And it was major BA.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

It would also depend a lot on the number of people who were fighting the creature at once. If it's one on one, your only chance will likely be a weapon with reach. If a group fights against something (say, an RPG-style party), one person (or a few) could keep the beast's attention while others with weapons that prioritized speed and damage over reach could conduct hit-and-run attacks against its flanks.

[*i]

Quote:

Dual wielding pushes the damage difference over a big threshold. It could be redesigned so that the damage actually doesn't go up that much, but then what's the point?

Making the damage comparable is probably not the way to go. I do think that dual wielding, should, from a pure damage per attack perspective, be the most effective. However, getting to that point should require an amount of specialization such that that PC would miss out on other things.

[dave s]

Give shields MUCH better enchantments. So it's a choice between some great shields and better damage. Dragon Age: Origins did a great job balance dual wielding, sword and board, and two-handed weapons. They each had their own role to play in combat. But that was largely due to each having a set of unique combat skills. Harder to pull that off with a Spiderweb game.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

If a group fights against something (say, an RPG-style party), one person (or a few) could keep the beast's attention while others with weapons that prioritized speed and damage over reach could conduct hit-and-run attacks against its flanks.

That's my problem. What has speed but also damage, and what can do damage without reach. If you're fighting something substantially larger and stronger than you, you really can't get very close or you can be mauled or crushed in passing. You're also likely to have more and more dangerous limb to get past on your way to vitals.

—Alorael, who now wants to take on a dragon with a boar spear. He'll need to acquire both a spear and a dragon first, though.

[*i]

I think even with better shields, it all comes down to killing something faster is almost always the better route. In the vein of having to specialize to reap the benefits of dual wielding, I would revamp battle disciplines. As of now, acquiring them is rather boring and linear. How about requiring an investment of skill points to unlock a battle discipline that is available only when certain skill thresholds could be met? To counterbalance the loss of skill points, I would take away the current set of "special" skills, which are usually just buffed versions of the originals.

 

For instance, if Quick Strike were a battle discipline giving a huge temporary boost to battle order, that could serve as a difference maker in a battle against fast enemies. Other possibilities are attacks that ignore armor, poisoned or other enchanted blades, dumbfound spellcasters, etc. Point being, that dual wielding would allow you to, on average, kill something faster, but these disciplines can provide a strong advantage in specific, but not too uncommon, situations.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Cold and alone and angry

What has speed but also damage, and what can do damage without reach.

A displacer beast?

[Ceiling Durkheim]

I think underlying *i's point, and some of the others, is a principle that this conversation has mostly overlooked: to be worth including in a game, dual wielding has to bring something new to the table. It could just be flavor, but I'm dubious on the idea of including a new gameplay mechanic purely because it looks/sounds cool, especially since most of us aren't exactly playing Jeff's games for the graphics.

 

If dual wielding is just another way to do more damage, there's no reason besides flavor to include both it and two handed weapons; they have basically the same effect, but with more programming time involved. Best case scenario, you get a case like in D&D 3/3.5 where dual wielding is better against targets with a lot of HP, while two handed weapons are better against targets with a lot of AC and/or damage resistance. Worst case scenario, you get a game like many in the Final Fantasy series where one of the two (usually dual wielding, as the more 'cool' of the two) is thoroughly and obviously better than the other. Avernum 6 doesn't go that far, but forum consensus does rate dual wielding as consistently better than pole weapons.

 

One option is to make dual wielding and two handers interact with skill sets differently, as *i suggests, or use different sets of skills like in Dragon Age. Another is to make weapon special abilities more desirable in themselves: dual wielding might do less overall damage than a two hander, but give more passive bonuses, and have a better chance to activate trigger-on-hit abilities like status abnormalities or special types of damage. I'm sure there are others, but those are what I can think of offhand. Mauve deer: unless dual wielding is both distinct from two handed weapons in gameplay terms, and balanced with it (as well as shields, which we've discussed more), there's little reason to include it.

 

@Alorael: That's true to a degree, but most animals (and presumably big humanoids) can attack a target in front of them, on which they're concentrating, much more effectively than one outside their field of vision and out of range of their jaws. A dragon's legs may be able to kick and trample, but they're not likely to be all that accurate, and I'd certainly rather be hit by those than by a dragon's jaws or fire breath.

[Erebus the Black]

You talk about dual wielding like its a bad thing when sliths and nephils should be able to triple wield with their tails (or carry a spear and a shield)

[Tcheedchee]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

A dragon's legs may be able to kick and trample, but they're not likely to be all that accurate, and I'd certainly rather be hit by those than by a dragon's jaws or fire breath.

that'S also DaO, right? I hated that. Although I have to admit, I found it a quite accurate idea of fighting. Very much opposed to dual wielding and similar features.
If you look at real martial arts, you'll agree to being absolutely against a comparison of real fighting and RPG-fighting — or cinema-fighting, just to mention it. It's not realistic at all, therefore one shouldn't compare it.

Real fighting is chaotic, dirty, bloody, snotty and damn short most of the time. There are some videos on u-tube showing an Afghan Karate-Master fighting in some competitions where hitting the all parts of the body is allowed. Look at his style. It's incredible. It's quite artistic, but its also very straight to the weak points within seconds. And he isn't afraid to hurt anybody…

Talking about martial arts, I'd prefer a battle-system, where the special skills-tree would be improved in the sence of "perfected master" (or whatever), where the fighter really knows all the vital points. I know, that's blademaster, but I can't really find a true expression of the skills of the blademaster in the style of the game yet.

As for the topic of graphics, I'm really fed up with the games, which try to improve the reality of the graphics and get more and more unrealistic about the fighting within this setting. I can't see all these Diablo-style kind of singleton-heros (like in Two Worlds 2 for instance) anymore, who are pierced by ten arrows or more and never fail nor falter. I don't really like the splatter either.

That's something to think about, too, on this forum, I'd say. You're still in a game-style setting in Spiderweb games, with a board-game-style of setting. Therefore the fantastic allusions are quite ok.

I liked DaO, I have to admit, – and still like it, although it doesn't keep it's promise of different story-lines depending on choice of class and race very well.
Anyway. I like any Spiderweb game better, because it's a game, and it doesn't try to be anything else. Therefore the occurrences can be fantastic. And you can concentrate on devicing several tactics in different situations. You can smile about the "moral conundrums" and funny remarks, and just have fun and enjoy trying to win against the GAME.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

It's a bad thing in that it takes more work on the game-designer's part to program and balance, when said designer could spend time on other features, debugging, or just release the game earlier.

 

Also, do we have any evidence that Nephil and Slith tails are prehensile?

[waterplant]

A reduction in damage for DW could be balanced by a bonus to Parry or some other Bladeshield option. Blocking with one sword could allow an opportunity to counter in the same turn.

 

DW adds to decision-making options for the player. It doesn't need to be just straight-up-and-down damage vs defence.

[Colonel Haste]

There are subtle differences between DW and Pole that are perhaps worth mentioning.

 

1) Well Aimed Blow and Mighty Blow make Pole better comparatively because you only get that on the first strike.

 

2) Cloak of Curses makes DW better because you get double the chance to add a curse.

 

3) Similarly swords that slow or curse make DW better comparatively.

 

4) Pole works better for sliths, meaning DW is comparatively better for humans and nephil.

 

5) Pole is more effective early and DW is more effective late. Since I die more often in the early game than late game this affects the strategic choice.

 

Bottom line, it is definitely more than just adding to damage, but these differences are admittedly subtle. They are more likely to appeal to the hard core like those of us who read the boards. (Of course the DW coolness factor has perhaps the opposite effect.)

 

My last thought is that I think the shields in A6 are pretty great. You can get one eyebeast chitin pretty early and by end game you can get two of those plus two quicksilver bulwarks. Given the excellent shields and my preference for the better early game action of Pole, I had to seriously consider whether to use DW or not, notwithstanding the better late game damage.

[Slawbug]

Pole is more effective early because of the good poles. If you use those, Pole is effective early without any points put into it, so it's very reasonable to use Pole early on without skill points put into it, then switch to DW later.

[Colonel Haste]

I agree, but DW is comparatively less effective early, at least if you plan to use the trainer and invest in DW.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

That's true to a degree, but most animals (and presumably big humanoids) can attack a target in front of them, on which they're concentrating, much more effectively than one outside their field of vision and out of range of their jaws. A dragon's legs may be able to kick and trample, but they're not likely to be all that accurate, and I'd certainly rather be hit by those than by a dragon's jaws or fire breath.

Once things get big enough, they don't need to be accurate. The comparative ranges of a sword and a flailing bear are not favorable to the swordsman. Up that to any of the staple absurdly large creatures of fantasy and you really don't want to be using a sword. Hitting them is like hitting the broad side of a barn; getting hit by them is like getting hit by the broad side of a barn, and it's hard to miss with something that big.

—Alorael, who thinks the Avadon skill system lends itself to giving Dual Wielding and single weapons different abilities, active and passive. Actually, like most Spiderweb games, the cost is mostly in opportunity cost, but it could be done. It would just end up class-based like the skill trees all are.