Revamping the dual wield system?

[Prince of Kitties]

I've just been playing Angband for a bit, and it's gotten me thinking... The dual-wield system in BoE could use some working on. Basically, everyone makes their PCs ambidextrous, and as long as two one-handed weapons do more damage than one two-handed one, there's no reason to use the two-handed weapon.

 

I think it would be cool to change that a bit. The new system would still have to be pretty basic, but I don't see that as an issue. It could look something like this:

 

- Bladed weapons: can only be dual-wielded with other bladed.

- Bashing weapons: can only be dual-wielded with other bashing.

- Pole weapons: cannot be dual-wielded at all.

 

Additionally...

 

- Dual-wielded weapons would be less likely to assassinate, whether the PC is ambidextrous or not.

- Two-handed weapons would get an intrinsic damage bonus and be more likely to assassinate.

 

I'm not sure how this would impact old scenarios - maybe if implemented it should be optional? Still, it seems like an interesting idea to me.

[*i]

I like the idea of balancing dual wield, however, I am concerned about breaking balance. I would generally advise against it for this reason.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Miramor

I think it would be cool to change that a bit. The new system would still have to be pretty basic, but I don't see that as an issue. It could look something like this:

- Bladed weapons: can only be dual-wielded with other bladed.
- Bashing weapons: can only be dual-wielded with other bashing.
- Pole weapons: cannot be dual-wielded at all.

This doesn't help balance the game at all: it only adds arbitrary limitations. It's already better to stick to one weapon type because of the way weapon skills work, and there aren't any one-handed pole weapons in the standard bladbase.

Quote:

- Dual-wielded weapons would be less likely to assassinate, whether the PC is ambidextrous or not.

Pretty sure assassination can already only take effect when you hit with the first weapon, not the second -- so dual-wielding doesn't make you more likely to assassinate, at least.

Quote:

- Two-handed weapons would get an intrinsic damage bonus and be more likely to assassinate.

An intrinsic damage bonus? What are you thinking? That would only serve to make game mechanics more opaque to designers and players. If you think two-handed weapons are too weak, change the bladbase to raise their base damage.

Trying to make different combat styles inherently balanced against each other is a hopeless proposition anyway. Too much depends on what items scenario designers choose to put in their scenarios, and even on what kinds of monsters are included (heavy armour on monsters favours a single strong weapon over dual-wielding).

[Omlette]

I think the issue here is that going ambidextrous is overpowered, rather than that wielding two weapons in intrinsically overpowered. Giving ambidextrous characters an inbuilt disadvatage (like a lowered chance of assassinating) might well work, and would make a certain amount of sense: I think in real life most ambidextrous people are slightly less able with either hand than a strongly one-sided person is with their strong hand.

 

-E-

[Tonweya]

Not being a warrior, I originally favored dual weapons because it would seem that a strong offense is better than a strong defense. However, I was seeing the shield only as a defensive object; that it would not be used offensively too.

There is a show on TV that, iirc, is called, 'The Greatest Warrior', or something similar. Their studies show how, in the hands of a warrior, the shield would be used quite offensively, too.

When creating a Party, I divide all the attributes among the party members, including ambidextrous and assassinate for the two fighters.

If a designer includes a special two-handed sword, I'd probably use it, but that would be the only exception now, for me.

If the mechanics of the game were changed, I'd probably change with it. But as it now stands, I now see the offensive ability of the shield to be greater than the defensive ability of a second sword.

me

[Men are from Slars]

Unfortunately, dual-wielding was the best option even in Exile 1 with no Ambidextrous trait. The difference there was that it wasn't useful until you had high levels of Dexterity and weapon skill to overcome the to-hit penalty. But once you did, it was just as much better.

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Miramor

I've just been playing Angband for a bit, and it's gotten me thinking... The dual-wield system in BoE could use some working on. Basically, everyone makes their PCs ambidextrous, and as long as two one-handed weapons do more damage than one two-handed one, there's no reason to use the two-handed weapon.

I think it would be cool to change that a bit. The new system would still have to be pretty basic, but I don't see that as an issue. It could look something like this:

- Bladed weapons: can only be dual-wielded with other bladed.
- Bashing weapons: can only be dual-wielded with other bashing.
- Pole weapons: cannot be dual-wielded at all.

Additionally...

- Dual-wielded weapons would be less likely to assassinate, whether the PC is ambidextrous or not.
- Two-handed weapons would get an intrinsic damage bonus and be more likely to assassinate.

I'm not sure how this would impact old scenarios - maybe if implemented it should be optional? Still, it seems like an interesting idea to me.

Nice idea, but I'm afraid we can't do it. This would pretty much destroy compatibility with prior scenarios. And making it optional doesn't seem like a good idea either.

Really, the easiest way to fix the problem is simply to increase the damage of your 2-handed weapons.

Originally Posted By: Omlette

I think the issue here is that going ambidextrous is overpowered, rather than that wielding two weapons in intrinsically overpowered. Giving ambidextrous characters an inbuilt disadvatage (like a lowered chance of assassinating) might well work, and would make a certain amount of sense: I think in real life most ambidextrous people are slightly less able with either hand than a strongly one-sided person is with their strong hand.

Ambidextrous does have an in-built disadvantage, though it's a minor one. An ambidextrous warrior will gain levels a little slower than a non-ambidextrous warrior.

Originally Posted By: Ahbleza

Not being a warrior, I originally favored dual weapons because it would seem that a strong offense is better than a strong defense. However, I was seeing the shield only as a defensive object; that it would not be used offensively too.
There is a show on TV that, iirc, is called, 'The Greatest Warrior', or something similar. Their studies show how, in the hands of a warrior, the shield would be used quite offensively, too.
When creating a Party, I divide all the attributes among the party members, including ambidextrous and assassinate for the two fighters.
If a designer includes a special two-handed sword, I'd probably use it, but that would be the only exception now, for me.
If the mechanics of the game were changed, I'd probably change with it. But as it now stands, I now see the offensive ability of the shield to be greater than the defensive ability of a second sword.
me

Nice argument, but in Blades of Exile the offensive ability of the shield is nil.