Swordsman Archive
Thread: SWORDSMEN'S POLL: Dual-wielding
Dual-wielding, if ever implemented, should be the province of the Fencer and Pistoleer and THEM ONLY. In their respective lines that run off combat exp (I think it's Finesse for Fencers...I have no gun using characters so I don't know what it's called for them). However, you could implement double-bladed weapons for Heavy Swordmen and Pikemen.
Gee...can you tell I play D&D 3.5? HAHA!
Yes I would love to be able to dual-wield, but I also agree that it may be more of a fencer thing.
No.
If this is implemented it should go to the fencers (though, to keep balance between the melee classes,pikemen and swordsman should receive other perks to compensate if dual wielding is given to fencers, like extra 2 handed damage or better toughness ... or maybe greater reach/range).
2 handed weapons are just that : weapons meant to be used with two hands.
No.
I think our class being labled as "Swordsman" is a bit of a misomer. We are Heavy Swordsmen,andare masters oftheart of 2 handed weaponry. You wanna wield a sword in one hand and a shield or dirk or dagger in the other, then be a Fencer.
Dual-wielding, if ever implemented, should be the province of the Fencer and Pistoleer and THEM ONLY. In their respective lines that run off combat exp (I think it's Finesse for Fencers...I have no gun using characters so I don't know what it's called for them). However, you could implement double-bladed weapons for Heavy Swordmen and Pikemen.
Gee...can you tell I play D&D 3.5? HAHA!
After posting my first (and very simplistic) "yes" answer at the beginning of this thread, I've had cause to consider this a bit further and not only realize why so many people are saying "no" (in my mind, this should have been a slam dunk for the "yes" vote), but why it's such a slam dunk for me.
In Western history, the one example that clearly springs to mind of a dual-wielding class is the Florentine style fencer (think the Three Musketeers), and yes, I would fully agree that this would be an example of the Fencer class, and not the Swordsman. The Western image of the Swordsman, to me, is the Scottish warrior with a Claymore, and I would agree that he isn't going to be dual wielding at all.
However, just as American culture almostalways seems to do, we're completely ignoring Asian history in general and specifically Japanese history. Sorry for the mini-rant, but it's always been a pet peeve of mine thatalmost our entire educational systemteaches that nothing of any significance ever happened west of San Francisco or east of Jerusalem. God forbid we consider the accomplishments of civilizations other than ours.
Given that I use a KATANA (sorry, I know it's titled a "two-handed curved sword," but let's call it for what it is), I have as my class ideal a certain historical figure named Miyamoto Musashi, a man who lived in 16th century Japan andwho is considered perhaps the greatest swordsman who ever lived. Personally, I can't think of a single example of any Westerner (short of Audie Murphy (World War II), Alvin York (World War I), and perhaps Horatio (somewhere in Roman history), though I had to dig in my memory for that name) who impressed me enough with their historically recorded hand-to-hand warrior abilities that I actually remembered his name.
Generals, yes. Admirals, yes. Dictators, kings, and other political leaders, sure. But warriors? Melee types? People who didn't necesarily lead anyone else into battle, but mixed it up on a personal level with the other guy, whom we could consider a real-life example of an SWG-type melee class? Not a single one other than a Japanese guy who, by the way, happened to invent a two-weapon school of fighting- Niten Ichiryu. Just as another minor point of trivia, this guy was so good that he killed his first opponent (a man considered to be the local champion) at the age of 13, and he eventually stopped using swords altogether and instead fought people using sticks. He fought over 60 duels, losing none, and is considered something of a historical hero in Japan.
That, to me, is my primary example of a "swordsman," and thus, I absolutely have not the slightest problem with seeing dual-wielding as part of the swordsman class, and indeed, consider it completely appropriate to the class. With cleavers? No. With axes? No. With katanas? Absolutely.
this should be no ones skill.
unless you came up with a good way to balance it.
all these ppl just wanna be uber, when balance is the key to the game.
o and for all you who said that cause were 2-handed swordsman we should duel wield and the fencers should not cause their one-handed, thats not the way it goes. were trained in using big-arse, heavy, body busting, skull spliting weapons which require 2-hands to wield. the fencers are trained in lighter swords more for thrusting and jabbing, and can be wielded with one hand. that leaves the swordsman with no hands open to wield another big arse 2-handed sword while the fencer has one hand left to wield another light, one-handed sword.
No
We are 2-handed weapon users not users of 2 1-handed weapons.
Give it to fencers if anyone gets it.
Master Swordman Forever ~ Pve wh0r3 