Fencer Archive

Hello.. Greetings from the 2H forum,

How are you all?

We are having a little debate (well its up to 3,4 pages) on which of us should be able to dual wield swords. It's pretty evenly split so far but the older more fanitcal of us think that you 1-hers should get dual wielding since thats essentially two - one hand weapons... not a two handed weapon.

I was curious what your opinion is..

-thanks in advance-

Iag Iag -M2H-MCH-

I agree with u. How could a person carrying a 2h wepon carry 2 of them. 1h weps should be able to dual weild.

Amok nagea, Eclipse

No way could a 2 handed weapon be wielded in 2 hands. Absolutely none.

Seena

2H weapons are just that, 2Handed.

One handed is one handed, but that other hand isn't doing much else besides applying the meds. I want dual vibroblades though : )

Duel swords would take care ofsome of the problems with our class.

1) The under-powered weapons everybody complains about. It would make sense that the class with the weakest weapons would get the extra power.

2) Fencer popularity would increase heavily. Right now we are one of the least popular classes. It would be nice to be able to find someone to teach me.

3)Weapon quality would increase as more weaponsmiths concentrate on one-handed weapons. Right now most don't because the demand isn't even close tothe demand forany rangedweapon.

I get excited just thinking about what the secial moves and attacks would look like for duel swords. This is something that definatly needs to be made a priority imo.

thanks! can we get some more feedback...

a two handed weapon would be one weapon that is too heavy and bulky to weild in one hand. i can see how some might think that one big weapon or two smaller ones would be related, but the differences are amazing. a large heavy weapon is one you rely on brute strength to wield, and cause serious havoc with. a one handed weapon relies on quick motions and presice movements to achieve with finesse what sheer weight and volume cannot. it simply makes more sense that a one handed could learn to do the exact same thing with two hands that they do with one, whereas a two handed swordman would have to learn a completely different style of fighting.

which means if a swordsman wanted dual wield, he'd have to take up fencing.



p.s. as a fencer, i do not want dual wield. but if anyone should get it, fencers would. another correlation: pistoleers and fencers are closely related. swordsman and rifleman are closely related. the last time i saw someone firing a rifle in each hand was... oh wait.

I would be in favor of dual wielding as long as there is still some reason to use just one sword.

There should be perhaps an accuracy penality or something associated with dual wielding.

Making it just do double damage (or two attacks) per round with NO penalities would make single handed pointless.

They could take a lesson from KoTOR where single sabers got great defense bonuses (supposedly because it's the most "efficient" they said)

---

KlivianAldiss wrote:

I would be in favor of dual wielding as long as there is still some reason to use just one sword.

There should be perhaps an accuracy penality or something associated with dual wielding.

Making it just do double damage (or two attacks) per round with NO penalities would make single handed pointless.

They could take a lesson from KoTOR where single sabers got great defense bonuses (supposedly because it's the most "efficient" they said)

---

i think that dual wield should only be implemented if they lower our surrnet speed cap to .5s

if they do then the cap could be 1s if you are dual wielding with just double the damage

this would make it so there was actually no benefit to dual wielding and actually the opposite because you wouldnt be able to apply status effects as fast

that makes sense becasue someone could start a fight with one sword, do blind, dizzy lunge, then pull out the other sword and start whaling on them

maybe to even it out they could make the HAM costs be 1.75x the cost of one sword

to make it even then

it should also ony be at master

Um... primarily, the intent of duel wielding - one sword/dagger/cloak/lantern (yes these were allused) is *defensive* - not offensive, or doubling damage.

Seena

why can't they be used to double damage?

I agree, since we do the least amount of damage of our two handed and especially (lets face it 99% of the people that choose melee go tka) no handed bretheren, I think duel wielding should be implemented. I do not think it should do more damage, but cut your attack speed down cause you can strike twice as fast as a two handed swordsmen. So you do the same amount of damage but like twice as fast or something like that. However, I think that it should be an ablility that you get high up in the skill tree, that way it would be alot more fair and balanced.

Altair,

If people want to 'use' the logic of duel weild to substantiate why, we, as Fencers, should be granted this ability, then that logic should be constrained by the reality of what a second weapon was actually used *for*. (imo) Minimal damage was inflicted with the second weapon; it was, as I stated, primarily for defense.

Seena