I have searched the database to see if this question was answered, but I could not find an answer. Forgive me If I did not searh hard enouph.
Is is possible to fight with two weapons in this game? If it is not it will be very, very disapointing. There is nothing like combat using two short sword or Knives, Even two fighting sticks can be leathal and fun to use.
Two Weapon Fighting?
![Officer [Bronze Rank]](./images/ranks/officer1.png "Officer [Bronze Rank]")
I *think* it was answered in the Q&A thread, but there's no dual wielding in Book 1, at least, that's what I have in my head. I believe it's planned for Book 2 however.
Personally, I don't really see the big deal. It's showy, sure, and can be kind of fun but on a realistic level it's fairly absurd. Makes for great movies and high fantasy, but on a practical level it doesn't make a lot of sense.
The point of dual wielding in a video game is for flash and to keep things moving on screen. In NWN for example, I often have two weapon users just for visual interest. But for Eschalon, I don't see that it'd add a lot visually.
Personally, I don't really see the big deal. It's showy, sure, and can be kind of fun but on a realistic level it's fairly absurd. Makes for great movies and high fantasy, but on a practical level it doesn't make a lot of sense.
The point of dual wielding in a video game is for flash and to keep things moving on screen. In NWN for example, I often have two weapon users just for visual interest. But for Eschalon, I don't see that it'd add a lot visually.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
Two weapon fighting (TWF) is good indeed but I think it should be well implemented in terms of game mechanic and rules.
It TWF is used only for aesthetic purpose, well, I agree with Gallifrey.
But if you introduce new character classes trained in this discipline and work on a more elaborate combat system with bonuses and maluses related to one weapon vs two weapon handling, well, you get a deeper funny game.
I.e.
You could allow multiple attacks only for high level warriors and only if they use two weapons.
But I think we'll see what Basilisk's planning for Eschalon II after the release of Book I.
I hope to put my hand soon on the demo.
It TWF is used only for aesthetic purpose, well, I agree with Gallifrey.
But if you introduce new character classes trained in this discipline and work on a more elaborate combat system with bonuses and maluses related to one weapon vs two weapon handling, well, you get a deeper funny game.
I.e.
You could allow multiple attacks only for high level warriors and only if they use two weapons.
But I think we'll see what Basilisk's planning for Eschalon II after the release of Book I.
I hope to put my hand soon on the demo.
furor vincit omnia
Gallifrey with all due respect you don't know what you are talking about when you claim;
" It's showy, sure, and can be kind of fun but on a realistic level it's fairly absurd. Makes for great movies and high fantasy, but on a practical level it doesn't make a lot of sense."
There are many Martail Art styles that use two weapons in combat. The fighting sticks I spoke about are one example. The speed and extra atacks you gain from using two shorter swords or long daggers are wonderful.
Now I agree that dual wielding two long swords is difficult at best. Not the brightest of ideas. It is kind of up on the level of using a massive two-handed sword or Axe. Sure, the two-handed swords and Axes have power and reach, but unless you are a giant they will slow you down.
It is also worth talking about a rapier and side dagger combo. The side dagger serves two purposes. One to parry attacks, and the other is a quick thrust to either slow your attacker down or end the fight quickly.
Sword fighting is not all about power, much of what makes an excellent sword fighter is quick wrists and speed. Weapons got heavier as time passed to penatrate plate armor. In fact, swords starting to become obsolete due to the fact that axes worked better on heavy armor. However, as history teaches us, a heavly armored knight on horseback was often deafeated by a lightly armored warrior with a dagger. Sometimes even peasants. Why? The knights were simply pulled off their horses and a dagger was slipped ino the visor of the helmet. There are also other chinks in armor that a dagger or smaller blade can fit through.
Fighting with two weapons in not only flashy and fun, but it is very pratical and leathal when employed by someone well trained in the weapons he\she is using.
" It's showy, sure, and can be kind of fun but on a realistic level it's fairly absurd. Makes for great movies and high fantasy, but on a practical level it doesn't make a lot of sense."
There are many Martail Art styles that use two weapons in combat. The fighting sticks I spoke about are one example. The speed and extra atacks you gain from using two shorter swords or long daggers are wonderful.
Now I agree that dual wielding two long swords is difficult at best. Not the brightest of ideas. It is kind of up on the level of using a massive two-handed sword or Axe. Sure, the two-handed swords and Axes have power and reach, but unless you are a giant they will slow you down.
It is also worth talking about a rapier and side dagger combo. The side dagger serves two purposes. One to parry attacks, and the other is a quick thrust to either slow your attacker down or end the fight quickly.
Sword fighting is not all about power, much of what makes an excellent sword fighter is quick wrists and speed. Weapons got heavier as time passed to penatrate plate armor. In fact, swords starting to become obsolete due to the fact that axes worked better on heavy armor. However, as history teaches us, a heavly armored knight on horseback was often deafeated by a lightly armored warrior with a dagger. Sometimes even peasants. Why? The knights were simply pulled off their horses and a dagger was slipped ino the visor of the helmet. There are also other chinks in armor that a dagger or smaller blade can fit through.
Fighting with two weapons in not only flashy and fun, but it is very pratical and leathal when employed by someone well trained in the weapons he\she is using.
You should have specified all that in your initial post! 
Yes, of course there are valid and realistic dual wielding fighting styles in the real world, all of which are extremely specialised (as you illustrate). So by extension, for those to be included in a game and maintain a level of realism, there'd need to be those cultural elements present. It makes little sense to have martial artists if there's no culture that supports that, for example.
Now, I'm all for realism in games, a healthy dose of realism makes the fantasy seem more tangible, but when it comes down to it, RPG game mechanics are far from realistic. In games like this, the warrior in full plate with a big shield and sword is nearly unstoppable in melee combat. This is of course ridiculous, just as it's ridiculous that a person can be hacked at repeatedly with a large axe and not die after the first or second hit.
So, if a dual wielding mechanic is to be included, it's either got to have some cultural reason to be there, or we're going to see people waving two battle axes or longswords around and generally wreaking havoc. Usually in RPGS, players with dual wielding characters use whatever two weapons are the best for them rather than with any thought to practicality or whatnot. This is why I replied the way I did in my previous reply.
I'd personally rather see the former, with specialised cultural reasons and a limited range of dual wielding combination, rather than the silliness of just picking up two unmatched weapons.
Yes, of course there are valid and realistic dual wielding fighting styles in the real world, all of which are extremely specialised (as you illustrate). So by extension, for those to be included in a game and maintain a level of realism, there'd need to be those cultural elements present. It makes little sense to have martial artists if there's no culture that supports that, for example.
Now, I'm all for realism in games, a healthy dose of realism makes the fantasy seem more tangible, but when it comes down to it, RPG game mechanics are far from realistic. In games like this, the warrior in full plate with a big shield and sword is nearly unstoppable in melee combat. This is of course ridiculous, just as it's ridiculous that a person can be hacked at repeatedly with a large axe and not die after the first or second hit.
So, if a dual wielding mechanic is to be included, it's either got to have some cultural reason to be there, or we're going to see people waving two battle axes or longswords around and generally wreaking havoc. Usually in RPGS, players with dual wielding characters use whatever two weapons are the best for them rather than with any thought to practicality or whatnot. This is why I replied the way I did in my previous reply.
I'd personally rather see the former, with specialised cultural reasons and a limited range of dual wielding combination, rather than the silliness of just picking up two unmatched weapons.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
If I explained my entire arguement in one post it would be very long, and we would miss out on all the fun debate. 
From what I have read the game does include hand to hand combat, which like it or not is a martial art. Furthermore, sword fighting and axe fighting are martial arts.
Culture is what you make it. So the game designers can make the culture whatever they invision it to be. Martail arts does not mean oriental. There are many forms of martial arts all over the world. Many of which develoved independently from each other. Not all martial arts involve hand to hand combat, but imploy a wide variety of weapons.
I agree with you on limits to dual-wielding. The off hand weapon should be lighter then the main hand weapon, or both weapons need to be light weapons. As for cultural reason, like I said, the culture is what the game designers make it.
What I would like to be able to do is build a character based on fast strikes with smaller weapons. For game mechanics you could always give the off hand weapon a percent chance as acting like a shield, for defense, one round and a percent chance of the offhand weapon giving the user an extra attack. Each round the off hand weapon does one or the other but not both, or does nothing at all. You could split the Two-weapon fighting skill into two skills. One for offense and one for defense. The computer then rolls the percent chance number for both offense and defense for that round the number that is higher wins out and you use the weapon accordingly for that round. Now if you did not succede on either percent chance then your off hand weapon does nothing for you that round. So in other words the more points you pump into the skill the better you will be at it. You could use it primarily as an offensive weapon or defensive weapon, or you could pump points into both. With limits on what types of weapons can be off hand weapons, you can prevent people from picking up to massive weapons and dual wielding them. In other words keep dual-wielding closer to the bounds of realism.
From what I have read the game does include hand to hand combat, which like it or not is a martial art. Furthermore, sword fighting and axe fighting are martial arts.
Culture is what you make it. So the game designers can make the culture whatever they invision it to be. Martail arts does not mean oriental. There are many forms of martial arts all over the world. Many of which develoved independently from each other. Not all martial arts involve hand to hand combat, but imploy a wide variety of weapons.
I agree with you on limits to dual-wielding. The off hand weapon should be lighter then the main hand weapon, or both weapons need to be light weapons. As for cultural reason, like I said, the culture is what the game designers make it.
What I would like to be able to do is build a character based on fast strikes with smaller weapons. For game mechanics you could always give the off hand weapon a percent chance as acting like a shield, for defense, one round and a percent chance of the offhand weapon giving the user an extra attack. Each round the off hand weapon does one or the other but not both, or does nothing at all. You could split the Two-weapon fighting skill into two skills. One for offense and one for defense. The computer then rolls the percent chance number for both offense and defense for that round the number that is higher wins out and you use the weapon accordingly for that round. Now if you did not succede on either percent chance then your off hand weapon does nothing for you that round. So in other words the more points you pump into the skill the better you will be at it. You could use it primarily as an offensive weapon or defensive weapon, or you could pump points into both. With limits on what types of weapons can be off hand weapons, you can prevent people from picking up to massive weapons and dual wielding them. In other words keep dual-wielding closer to the bounds of realism.
Fair enough :pGesion wrote:If I explained my entire arguement in one post it would be very long, and we would miss out on all the fun debate.
Well not really. I think if you ask a trained, dedicated martial artist (of any discipline) they would disagree that simply beating someone up qualifies as a martial art. The term implies training, dedication, emotional investment, spirituality and so forth.From what I have read the game does include hand to hand combat, which like it or not is a martial art. Furthermore, sword fighting and axe fighting are martial arts.
I suppose that fist-fighting being called a martial art would be akin to calling a paint-by-numbers Last Supper art.
There's a difference between a martial art and technical training in weapon use. A trained Roman legionary for example, is highly skilled in the use of his gladius but it's not really a martial art.
Certainly. I didn't imply that martial arts in a fantasy game must have an Oriental-styled counterpart. The medieval European world saw a form of western martial arts develop which did focus on a variety of perhaps more brutal forms of weapon and combat mastery.Culture is what you make it. So the game designers can make the culture whatever they invision it to be. Martail arts does not mean oriental. There are many forms of martial arts all over the world. Many of which develoved independently from each other. Not all martial arts involve hand to hand combat, but imploy a wide variety of weapons.
But real world history does not necessarily mean it needs to be part of a fantasy setting. This is something only the creator of the gameworld can really answer or elaborate on, though.
I always liked using the weapon speed rules in AD&D, I thought it made combat more varied and dynamic, and gave different characters advantages and disadvantages.What I would like to be able to do is build a character based on fast strikes with smaller weapons....
Combat is a tricky thing to model. Either it's too simplistic or it becomes cumbersome and the game turns more into a combat simulator than a fun RPG adventure. Computer games do have the great advantage of being able to model all sorts of things at the same time (which is why I'm amazed there's never been a Rolemaster cRPG!), so greater combat rules are possible, and I too would like to see more of what you outlined in a game.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
Well you just asked a trained Martial Artist.
To me the term "Hand to Hand" in a game setting means that the character has had dedicated training. There is a big diffrence between getting in a fight and punching somone, and having been trained in hand to hand combat, as you have suggested. In a game setting by investing training points into Hand to Hand says that you are dedicated to it.
Your example of the roman legionare with his gladius is a martial art if he dedicates himself to his weapon. Read your definition to what martial art implies.
The Germans were renowed for their skill with the long sword, they had a tradional dedicated training system that was very much an emotional investment.
The term martial art can be defined has a style of combat used in either defense or offense. Certainly the art is trained and requires dicpline and study. Therefore any form of combat that one dedicates themselves to and studies can be considered a marial art.
To me the term "Hand to Hand" in a game setting means that the character has had dedicated training. There is a big diffrence between getting in a fight and punching somone, and having been trained in hand to hand combat, as you have suggested. In a game setting by investing training points into Hand to Hand says that you are dedicated to it.
Your example of the roman legionare with his gladius is a martial art if he dedicates himself to his weapon. Read your definition to what martial art implies.
The Germans were renowed for their skill with the long sword, they had a tradional dedicated training system that was very much an emotional investment.
The term martial art can be defined has a style of combat used in either defense or offense. Certainly the art is trained and requires dicpline and study. Therefore any form of combat that one dedicates themselves to and studies can be considered a marial art.
In terms of an RPG, I think it'd have to depend on the degrees that hand to hand combat is implemented. If you look at the current incarnation of D&D, you can invest one feat in hand to hand combat, which gives you enough training to perhaps have an advantage over an untrained opponent. But just taking that feat doesn't make you what would be considered a martial artist, as there are more feats to take to expand, define and dedicate your character to the disciplines of martial arts.Gesion wrote: To me the term "Hand to Hand" in a game setting means that the character has had dedicated training. There is a big diffrence between getting in a fight and punching somone, and having been trained in hand to hand combat, as you have suggested. In a game setting by investing training points into Hand to Hand says that you are dedicated to it.
In another situation you may have a rule set that sees Hand To Hand giving you certain defensive and offensive abilities or modifiers based on rank, and of course you'd want to dump as many points into that skill as you could to represent dedication.
The legionary is disciplined for combat, he's trained to one purpose, one method. I think the martial arts, at their core, have a much deeper sense of philosophy, spirituality, emotional control as well as physical control that all tie together in one form. It's those things that the Roman soldier lacks which, I believe, prevents him from being called a martial artist.Your example of the roman legionare with his gladius is a martial art if he dedicates himself to his weapon. Read your definition to what martial art implies.
So do fencers but I think there's a difference between the two fields.The Germans were renowed for their skill with the long sword, they had a tradional dedicated training system that was very much an emotional investment.
I suppose it depends on your cultural perspective and in terms of implementing this sort of set-up into an RPG, any approach could work but I still think there has to be a fictional cultural background to support it, thus having it make sense.The term martial art can be defined has a style of combat used in either defense or offense. Certainly the art is trained and requires dicpline and study. Therefore any form of combat that one dedicates themselves to and studies can be considered a marial art.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
It would seem that we are both correct depending upon the point of view you choose to take on the matter.
To me martial arts includes any form of combat that one dedicates themselves to in order to perfect the use of the style.
It seems that your take on a martial art is the traditional oriental syle hand to hand or weapon combat.
As for the spiritual side of martial arts to day, I find that many students learn martial arts soley for defensive, and some cases, offensive reasons. The spiritual side of martial arts iS rarley taught or even mentioned. the lack of spiritualality could be due to the fact that much of the spiritual side of martial arts is based on the culture and traditions of where the martial art was established.
I believe that if we could peak back in time to the Romans and actually see their lives, we would find soldiers that would meet both of our view points.
Well, I hope they do put dual-wielding in the second game at least.
To me martial arts includes any form of combat that one dedicates themselves to in order to perfect the use of the style.
It seems that your take on a martial art is the traditional oriental syle hand to hand or weapon combat.
As for the spiritual side of martial arts to day, I find that many students learn martial arts soley for defensive, and some cases, offensive reasons. The spiritual side of martial arts iS rarley taught or even mentioned. the lack of spiritualality could be due to the fact that much of the spiritual side of martial arts is based on the culture and traditions of where the martial art was established.
I believe that if we could peak back in time to the Romans and actually see their lives, we would find soldiers that would meet both of our view points.
Well, I hope they do put dual-wielding in the second game at least.
-
BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
We probably will have dual wielding as a skill in Book II.
Our take on it: dual weapons shouldn't allow for two full attacks per round. In the real world, the second weapon is often used defensively to block or parry an attack. The difference between using two weapons instead of a weapon/shield combo is that you can switch which hand you parry and attack with. What I mean is, if you have a shield in your left hand and sword in your right, your attack will almost always come from your right hand; your enemy can almost certainly count on that. However, if you are using dual short swords, you may switch your attack between left or right hands, as well as which hand will be parrying. At best this means your enemy may be caught off guard by a sudden change of attack direction. Dual weapons, therefore, is more about improving your ToHit ability as well as giving some of the Armor Rating benefits that a shield may give you. Dual weapons should not be about increasing the rate of attack like most RPGs handle it.
Thoughts?
Our take on it: dual weapons shouldn't allow for two full attacks per round. In the real world, the second weapon is often used defensively to block or parry an attack. The difference between using two weapons instead of a weapon/shield combo is that you can switch which hand you parry and attack with. What I mean is, if you have a shield in your left hand and sword in your right, your attack will almost always come from your right hand; your enemy can almost certainly count on that. However, if you are using dual short swords, you may switch your attack between left or right hands, as well as which hand will be parrying. At best this means your enemy may be caught off guard by a sudden change of attack direction. Dual weapons, therefore, is more about improving your ToHit ability as well as giving some of the Armor Rating benefits that a shield may give you. Dual weapons should not be about increasing the rate of attack like most RPGs handle it.
Thoughts?
In the real world the off hand weapon serves many purposes, and what it is used for is dictated by the combat.
The off-hand weapon can be used to parry, to switch up attacks (as you poointed out), to fient, or both weapons can be used at the same time for a dual strike.
The question is how to you implenment dual-wielding techniques into a role playing game. As you pointed out the majority of games simply add an extra attack with the weapon which really does not allow for the full usefulness of a second weapon. This approach never allows you to implement the parrying or fienting possibilities.
However, to say that you can only add to your hit role leaves out the possibility of striking with both weapons at the same time, or in essance double damage.
It would be far more realistic to have the off-hand weapon default to parry, or in other words, have your off-hand weapon provide an armor bonus. While at the same time provide a percent chance to have the weapon give you an extra attack for one round. This could simulate an opening that allows you to strike with both weapons. The rounds that you have the extra attack you would forfiet your armor bonus until your next attack turn when the percent chance was re-rolled. You could also add in the chance for the off-hand weapon to provide a bonus to your attack role, as you have pointed out.
The off-hand weapon can be used to parry, to switch up attacks (as you poointed out), to fient, or both weapons can be used at the same time for a dual strike.
The question is how to you implenment dual-wielding techniques into a role playing game. As you pointed out the majority of games simply add an extra attack with the weapon which really does not allow for the full usefulness of a second weapon. This approach never allows you to implement the parrying or fienting possibilities.
However, to say that you can only add to your hit role leaves out the possibility of striking with both weapons at the same time, or in essance double damage.
It would be far more realistic to have the off-hand weapon default to parry, or in other words, have your off-hand weapon provide an armor bonus. While at the same time provide a percent chance to have the weapon give you an extra attack for one round. This could simulate an opening that allows you to strike with both weapons. The rounds that you have the extra attack you would forfiet your armor bonus until your next attack turn when the percent chance was re-rolled. You could also add in the chance for the off-hand weapon to provide a bonus to your attack role, as you have pointed out.
This discussion sent me off to do some research on two-weapon fighting, which was very fun. I particularly enjoyed this page:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~swidmaier/fencing.htm
because it taught me the term "Cobb's Traverse", which is just high-falutin' terminology for running away.
Wink
Several things emerge -- the idea of having two long weapons seems to have very little grounding in reality. Sword and shield, sword and dagger, or even sword and cloak were more popular. The one exception being the Florentine style of fighting with two rapiers, known as a "case of rapiers".
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XIVCase.htm
(However, this was very difficult to master, and they were not modern long rapiers, but two short swords, or short rapiers, flattened on one side to fit in a single scabbard. The style was more or less dependent on being in a formal dueling situation, in which your opponent would have the same weapons.)
The best discussion I found was here. I quote an excerpt but the whole discussion is well worth a read:
And a bit later in the discussion comes this quote:
So, in general, the Wrangler is correct that the primary purpose of an offhand weapon is defensive - to parry or trap the opponent's weapon with your shorter more maneuverable weapon. You can also stab them surreptitiously if you get close and they don't know you have it. However, getting close often means you're already impaled on the other person's weapon. See http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
Should you wish to indulge, sadly you've already missed your chance for a two-weapon fighting class in France:
http://www.guerriers-avalon.org/stage/stage_en.html
http://www.users.qwest.net/~swidmaier/fencing.htm
because it taught me the term "Cobb's Traverse", which is just high-falutin' terminology for running away.
Wink
Several things emerge -- the idea of having two long weapons seems to have very little grounding in reality. Sword and shield, sword and dagger, or even sword and cloak were more popular. The one exception being the Florentine style of fighting with two rapiers, known as a "case of rapiers".
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XIVCase.htm
(However, this was very difficult to master, and they were not modern long rapiers, but two short swords, or short rapiers, flattened on one side to fit in a single scabbard. The style was more or less dependent on being in a formal dueling situation, in which your opponent would have the same weapons.)
The best discussion I found was here. I quote an excerpt but the whole discussion is well worth a read:
There is also the problem that attacking with two weapons makes you face your opponent full on, which shortens your reach and leaves your body more exposed (unless you are constantly turning right face/left face, in which case you are still only striking with one weapon at a time).Two weapon fighting styles have not been popular over time for two reasons.
The first is that the shield is a much better option than a second weapon on the battlefield or in a duel.
The second is that a double handed weapon is a better choice on the battlefield or in a duel.
The popularity of rapier and dagger/sword and dagger can be put down to the fact that people may carry daggers for other reasons and that a dagger is an excellent surprise self defence weapon in it's own right.
The case of rapier is the same. This very difficult style was quite rare and definitely not looked upon as a primary option by the masters. Once again it was made practical by the fact that both weapons could be carried in the one scabbard. This combination would be vastly inferior to rapier and dagger for both self defence and duelling unless an opponent was caught off guard by the unusual style. The second someone was able to pass your point your weapons would be useless. If a rapier and dagger stylist engaged both your weapons and closed then he would be able to disengage his dagger at close range to kill you and there would be nothing you could do about it short of dropping both your weapons and wrestling with the dagger wielder.
We all know this is a tall order. If you didn't have room to threaten a good cut, this could even be done by a completely unarmed man.
And a bit later in the discussion comes this quote:
Fun to watch, Asian style in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfRF5_X2iT0A bit more on topic, it seems that most of the informations for fighting with like weapons in both hands comes from asian countries (philipines and thailand from what i saw) where they wear little or no armor. That also follows the trend of conversation with rapier and dagger.
So it appears that 2 like weapons has its uses when the opponent has little or no armor on.
So, in general, the Wrangler is correct that the primary purpose of an offhand weapon is defensive - to parry or trap the opponent's weapon with your shorter more maneuverable weapon. You can also stab them surreptitiously if you get close and they don't know you have it. However, getting close often means you're already impaled on the other person's weapon. See http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
Should you wish to indulge, sadly you've already missed your chance for a two-weapon fighting class in France:
http://www.guerriers-avalon.org/stage/stage_en.html
It would have helped if I gave a link.The best discussion I found was here. I quote an excerpt but the whole discussion is well worth a read:
http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000965-2.html
-
BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
Damn, Fleisch is working overtime! Nice finds.
I guess we'll really have to do some follow-up discussions when we start implementing additional features in Book II. I think everyone has valid points here, and ultimately total realism shouldn't be a huge concern in a world inhabited by goblins and filled with magic. Maybe we can run a few polls and see how everyone would like to see dual-weapon usage handled...when we reach that point.
Nice finds.I guess we'll really have to do some follow-up discussions when we start implementing additional features in Book II. I think everyone has valid points here, and ultimately total realism shouldn't be a huge concern in a world inhabited by goblins and filled with magic. Maybe we can run a few polls and see how everyone would like to see dual-weapon usage handled...when we reach that point.