new fighting style: using 2 swords

[Ian]

After reading my post a second time, I saw that my suggestion was a really bad one. Sorry about that.

[Taledus]

After reading my post a second time, I saw that my suggestion was a really bad one. Sorry about that.

No apologies needed...I wouldn't say it was a bad idea though, everyone has thoughts on how they'd like to see dual wielding implemented.

I highly doubt it would happen, but I'd really like to see 2 rubber chickens used for weapons, just because it is funny

On a more serious note, I am pushing for fire & ice kukri though

[phydeaux]

Hehe, rubber chickens would be awesome! With a higher chance for stun against humanoid, because they stare at you in slack-jawed awe/amazement!

[nyktos]

causes - actor condition: "Bad Pun" [-1% AC] [-1% BC]

[Pyrizzle]

causes - actor condition: "Bad Pun" [-1% AC] [-1% BC]

Wokka Wokka wokka!

Combining the AP of both weapons would probably be the best way to implement duel weilding IMO, but i think that the off handed weapon should be nerfed or have some other disadvantage (like raising the AP cost or maybe lowering the players BC, AC, and/or AD)

[Wyrmspawn]

causes - actor condition: "Bad Pun" [-1% AC] [-1% BC]

Wokka Wokka wokka!

Combining the AP of both weapons would probably be the best way to implement duel weilding IMO, but i think that the off handed weapon should be nerfed or have some other disadvantage (like raising the AP cost or maybe lowering the players BC, AC, and/or AD)

The lowering ac and bc part definetly doesn't make sense. I've put down some posts explaining why, but I guess I'll group them up here:

Why lowering block chance would be illogical: In Chinese Kung Fu, whenever two weapons are held, usually one is used mainly for offense, and the other for defence. While I'm not so sure about other forms of martial arts, from what I've read in history books, there were several famous warriors who wielded parrying daggers rather than shields, as parrying daggers are easier to move about quickly and are at times more effective than shields at blocking enemy attacks.

Why lowering attack chance would be illogical: As common sense would tell, blocking two weapons at once would be a lot more difficult than blocking one weapon. Even provided that you have a very clumsy left hand, when you force the enemy to block two of your hits at the same time, the enemy will have to block twice in quick succession, or find some way to block two weapons at the same time, which would increase your chance of landing a hit.

So, I propose that dual-wielding should increase your total attack chance and block chance by at least 20%, and lower your attack damage by 50% (Yes, I know this is also illogical, but at least it makes more sense than lowering attack chance or block chance!) I also propose that both weapons should have +1 ap cost, as co-ordinating your attacks may take a little more time than attacking in random patterns.

[Taledus]

The lowering ac and bc part definetly doesn't make sense. I've put down some posts explaining why, but I guess I'll group them up here:

I'm going to have to break down your very detailed response

Why lowering block chance would be illogical: In Chinese Kung Fu, whenever two weapons are held, usually one is used mainly for offense, and the other for defence. While I'm not so sure about other forms of martial arts, from what I've read in history books, there were several famous warriors who wielded parrying daggers rather than shields, as parrying daggers are easier to move about quickly and are at times more effective than shields at blocking enemy attacks.

So, our main character is a boy...and I often think of him as around my eldest sons age - 10. The off chance that he knows some form of Chinese Kung Fu, and untrained has the ability to simultaneously wield 2 normal sized weapons without any negative effects doesn't make very much sense to me. However, perhaps the Combat Abilities that Nyktos has brought up, or yet another skill, would help offset this if the player chose to use a skill point or pay-to-train an ability. Right out of the gate though there needs to be some nerf some where, or dual wielding is all this game is going to revolve around, making using a shield completely pointless.

Why lowering attack chance would be illogical: As common sense would tell, blocking two weapons at once would be a lot more difficult than blocking one weapon. Even provided that you have a very clumsy left hand, when you force the enemy to block two of your hits at the same time, the enemy will have to block twice in quick succession, or find some way to block two weapons at the same time, which would increase your chance of landing a hit.

Right, blocking two hits at the same time for an enemy should be next to impossible...however, sticking 2 foam sword in my 10 year old sons hands and having him attack me, I am able to successfully block both hits with 1 weapon then achieve a successful counter attack, as I am faster, more experienced, and have a 6th degree blackbelt...blocking kids is easy

However, again I point to Combat Abilities that have to be trained in order to decrease the offsets.

So, I propose that dual-wielding should increase your total attack chance and block chance by at least 20%, and lower your attack damage by 50% (Yes, I know this is also illogical, but at least it makes more sense than lowering attack chance or block chance!) I also propose that both weapons should have +1 ap cost, as co-ordinating your attacks may take a little more time than attacking in random patterns.

Correct, yet not...While dual wielding can provide a bump to Attack Chance & Block Chance, it could not logically be both at the same time IRL. Tying these in with how dual wielding would effectively work with the least amount of effort is impossible, as combat would become too tedious to want to play. While an off hand attack would provide a good block, if I chose to attack with it instead, I would not be able to block with it at the same time...

Regardless, Good Stuff!

[Wyrmspawn]

The modern Chinese Kung Fu practitioneer starts training at the age of 5... And in the not so distant past, they started learning Kung Fu at the age of 3... So, I suppose if western countries train warriors like we do, in the medieval world of Andor's Trail, Andor and his brother would also start training at a very young age.

As to the fact that it should not add to ac and bc at the same time, you can block AND attack at the same time, right? After all, you've got two weapons now.

[Taledus]

Maybe western countries try to let kids be kids LOL

However, yes you can attack and block at the same time, but not if both hands are attacking...one hand would have to be reserved for blocking. If that kind of options were made available, then this game would need a serious overhaul that simply is not worth the risk in order to make this effective IMO.

[Stoodge]

Pretty sure Mikhail says he thought Andor was training in the neighbours basement...

It stands to reason that in a small village a 'possibly younger' brother would tag along too. Now I'm not saying that it was any form of structured training BUT it would fit slightly with the 'theme' of the world that even young people had some form of weapons training.

I like the idea of pay-to-train for some skills. As far as I'm concerned having that available would add to the open world feel I believe is one of the key themes of this game.

Using multiple weapons, sword and shield or even no weapon will add more to the ROLE PLAYING aspect of the game. That's always a good thing for an RPG. Right? The only issue, as always, is balance.

Anyway that's my 2 cents...