Awesome Stuff You Have To Share, Part 3: You Can't Handle The Awesome!

[Kuroimaken]

So it turns out that D&D 3.5 is accurate with how dual-wielding isn't that great!

In related news: This guy makes amazing videos.

I'm willing to concede his point about missile weapons. MAYBE two-handed weapons. But the thing about dual-wielding is that the point is to control your opponent's reach. The point he makes about the tennis serve is no point at all; he can put that extra 'oomph' into his attack with a weapon in one's off-hand.

One other thing about shields. They could break. And in fact, they did break, a lot of the time. Lots of shields were wooden with metal reinforcement back then, because it was lighter and less expensive than making a whole shield out of metal. So while it wasn't the combination of weapons you would go to war with, when your shield got a nice, big hole in it from an axe or mace or - Cthulhu forbid - a halberd, you WOULD reach for your backup weapon in your other hand, because there was no reason to keep your off-hand free after you discarded your now-useless shield.

His point about hacking speed makes no sense whatsoever. See, he's not taking into consideration the weight of the weapon as well as how hard it is to balance a sequence when you miss. and coordinating an off-hand swing from a different angle is actually easier, and faster, than coordinating a missed swing, from a different angle, with the same hand. He's right at least in that one does not swing two weapons at once towards the center of mass. But one CAN safely swing AWAY from them, aiming at two different spots even. Heck, you could use two weapons so as to use one to BREAK the opponent's shield and the other to finish him off.

Aside from which a shield gives you a gigantic, glaring blind spot if it's big enough. And if it's not, what's the point of using it then?

TL;DR

Dual-wielding done right is awesome.

[Gazzien]

So it turns out that D&D 3.5 is accurate with how dual-wielding isn't that great!

In related news: This guy makes amazing videos.

D&D goes into the pitfall of "more weapons equals more attacks!". To an extreme extent, even, when you factor in creatures with more than two arms.

After i've seen this, i've been imagining a character i created once which was an Anthropomorphic Octopus, flailing his 6 arms like the guy in the video. It was pretty funny stuff. Of course, he was a grappler, so he didn't really flail all that much, but rather hugged people to death. And made them explode because of all that damage.

In memory of The Ock. He loved... at times, loved too much. All fled in terror of his six-armed hugs.

[oslecamo]

His point about hacking speed makes no sense whatsoever. See, he's not taking into consideration the weight of the weapon as well as how hard it is to balance a sequence when you miss. and coordinating an off-hand swing from a different angle is actually easier, and faster, than coordinating a missed swing, from a different angle, with the same hand. He's right at least in that one does not swing two weapons at once towards the center of mass. But one CAN safely swing AWAY from them, aiming at two different spots even. Heck, you could use two weapons so as to use one to BREAK the opponent's shield and the other to finish him off.

Aside from which a shield gives you a gigantic, glaring blind spot if it's big enough. And if it's not, what's the point of using it then?

TL;DR

Dual-wielding done right is awesome.

Indeed, and there's even historical records of it.

The portuguese soldiers during the Discovery era had the following battle doctrine:
-Fire crossbows/muskets, then throw them away because reloading those was too slow.
-Draw their shields and swords, charge enemy with shields up to block enemy arrows (most other armies of that time still used those).
-When melee is reached, throw away your shield instantly and draw your long dagger with your now free off-hand.
-Use long dagger to deflect enemy shield/main weapon, exposing your enemy vulnerable spots.
-Stab vulnerable enemy with your sword.
-Rinse and repeat until no enemies left.
-?
-Profit!

The reason why they threw away the shield when they reached melee was because the long dagger was lighter to wield and basically just as useful as the shield when enemy arrows weren't a problem anymore (and the portuguese also forged their main swords lighter than the average for that time). Thus they tired slower in combat and could fight on longer, while opponents with big shields and heavier weapons would sooner get fatigued and exhausted. And a fatigued army goes down quite easily.


Also allow me to remind you the portuguese army at that time went halfway around the world kicking the asses of basically everybody they met, usually heavily outnumbered.

Of course, D&D doesn't really take in account stamina loss from swinging an huge sword compared to light weapons, so meh.

[dman11235]

Did you not notice how he talked about that method of dual wielding in the video?

[Kuroimaken]

He basically equated it to using a buckler.

You don't stab people with a buckler.

[dman11235]

And the dual wielding oslecamo was describing was exactly that.  Well, he described using it as a buckler and a utility for occupying opponent's weapons/shields.  The second weapon, basically, isn't used for stabbing.

[Kuroimaken]

I can't speak for Portuguese styles, but in Japanese dual-wielding the main-hand weapon and off-hand weapon are used interchangeably for parrying as well as attack. You can use the smaller weapon to parry a sideways slash and cut at the opponent's exposed shoulder or neck, for example, or parry an overhead attack with the longer weapon (which allows you to slide the opponent's blade along your own) and slice his belly open with the short sword. If you want to get fancy, you could even switch hands just to fuck up with your opponent's perception of your range - ambidexterity as an opposing tool is a real bitch on a standard swordsman, who's often trained to measure distance from the right side exclusively.

Neither of the techniques I described above is possible with a large shield. There's just too much weight and space getting in the way.

[oslecamo]

The off-hand dagger was used for stabbing if the opportunity presented itself. It was not its primary purpose, but the threat was there once in close combat. Your opponent had to watch out for that, further making it easier to make them drop their defense. You never have to worry about your opponent slipping a buckler through the chinks of your armor to cut an important artery.

There's even the story "Memorial do Convento"(Convent Memorial) where one of the main characters is Bartolomeus, a soldier discarded from the army after losing his left hand, now wandering the land doing odd jobs. He gets himself a changeable prosthesis where he can fit stuff like forks and hooks to help in his daily life, but when traveling in the road he fits a dagger to his stump, and a sword on his right hand. The sword is usually clean, the dagger is covered in the dried blood of all the bandits he already stabbed with it and were too busy worrying about his sword.

[linklord231]

Skyrim by Lindsey Stirling and Peter Hollins. 

[Libertad]

There's an island off the coast of Japan full of feral rabbits, and they're all so adorable!

[bhu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL-7lmY_gNA  I think you mean terrifying 

[Jackinthegreen]

The off-hand dagger was used for stabbing if the opportunity presented itself. It was not its primary purpose, but the threat was there once in close combat. Your opponent had to watch out for that, further making it easier to make them drop their defense. You never have to worry about your opponent slipping a buckler through the chinks of your armor to cut an important artery.

There's even the story "Memorial do Convento"(Convent Memorial) where one of the main characters is Bartolomeus, a soldier discarded from the army after losing his left hand, now wandering the land doing odd jobs. He gets himself a changeable prosthesis where he can fit stuff like forks and hooks to help in his daily life, but when traveling in the road he fits a dagger to his stump, and a sword on his right hand. The sword is usually clean, the dagger is covered in the dried blood of all the bandits he already stabbed with it and were too busy worrying about his sword.

Sounds like a possible use of the stub knife in the Arms and Equipment Guide?

[sirpercival]

HEY GUYS LOOK WHAT I WROTE

[brujon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yu1gIVT4hA

Guy forge welds a wrought-iron wagon wheel into a gun barrel. Oldschool style.

Thought to share this with you guys so you could get a feel on how gunsmithing might work in a D&D scenario, with primitive (non-steel) firearms.

This is only the first part of the process, mind you, and it's already 4+ hours of work. Guy didn't even start on the moving parts of the gun, and the barrel isn't finished, seeing as that the bore isn't uniform and would require a boring tool (which would have to be made out of steel).

BUT, as you can see, everything can be done without electricity and power tools, it just takes time and skill. Supplying an army with this would be problematic... Take a lot of blacksmiths.

[oslecamo]

Eeerr, gun rifling was invented in the 15th century, definitely much earlier than electricity or power tools. The concept of stabilizing the flight of a projectile by spinning it was known in the days of bows and arrows, but early firearms using black powder had difficulty with rifling because of the fouling left behind by the combustion of the powder. It was not until more refined forms of gunpowder were developed that rifling became viable for soldiers.

Queen Anne flintlock pistols had rifling, but were a pain to reload in action so the military didn't use them much. Still popular with civilians and pirates back in the day.

[brujon]

Eeerr, gun rifling was invented in the 15th century, definitely much earlier than electricity or power tools. The concept of stabilizing the flight of a projectile by spinning it was known in the days of bows and arrows, but early firearms using black powder had difficulty with rifling because of the fouling left behind by the combustion of the powder. It was not until more refined forms of gunpowder were developed that rifling became viable for soldiers.

Queen Anne flintlock pistols had rifling, but were a pain to reload in action so the military didn't use them much. Still popular with civilians and pirates back in the day.

I know. Nothing i've said contradicts that... I'm merely showing the actual process behind the finished product. Like how they manage to actually make a tube out of a metal sheet, how the weld is extremely seamless and as strong as the rest of the metal.

Sadly, the guy didn't make the other videos showing the boring tools and the rifling process, but it's not hard to imagine it. I believe a couple of blacksmiths working long-hours could finish a pistol in one, maybe two days, if they're rushed and already experienced in making it. A production line would make things a lot faster, though.

[Libertad]

What each country leads the world in.

Brazil leads the world in coffee production.

Jordan has the largest amount of large falafel balls.

Pakistan has the largest number of field hockey players.

Portugal has the most people graduating high school.

Qatar has the highest gross domestic product per capita.

United Kingdom has the largest number of fascist movements.

United States leads the world in freedom falling off beds and chairs, getting killed by lawnmowers, nobel laureates and eating hot dogs.

Venezuela has the largest amount of Miss Universe winners.

[SorO_Lost]

The point he makes about the tennis serve is no point at all; he can put that extra 'oomph' into his attack with a weapon in one's off-hand.

Not simultaneously, which he addresses single weapon attacking speed is just as equal at that point. And what he didn't discuss was how hard ambidexterity is let alone when someone is trying to hack off your head which is why dual wielding is a thing only idiots or the exceptionally talented (sic could kick your ass with a teacup) do.

A shield breaking in combat is also a stroke that would have killed you failing, and for some reason people don't like being killed.

Indeed, and there's even historical records of it.
The portuguese soldiers during the Discovery era had the following battle doctrine:

You mean Rodeleros? Because no, that's just inaccurate. They also didn't wear pants so what the hell do they know?

I can't speak for Portuguese styles, but in Japanese dual-wielding the main-hand weapon and off-hand weapon are used interchangeably for parrying as well as attack.

There are contributing factors, Japan's bows sucked balls and the lack of metal limited them to wood and leather armor that a strong enough blow could cut through. Which in turn lead to the creation of striking methods and swords to do just that. Which in an arms race led to said leather armor being redesigned with a heavy focus on the head and shoulders to block powerful downward strikes. However, when stabbing the weak points were thought of their stupid honor got in the way. A real man doesn't use sissy knives to groin punch or w/e. So shields never really caught on, or you know actual protective gear. Civilized people just had no use for bulky armor or heavy unsightly murder tools, I mean how many bulletproof vests do you have laying around your house? None? I guess I don't need a hunting rifle to kill you now do I?

The same thing is found in fencing too in it's own way. Full-plate consumes a lot of resources and if the intended wearer's size changes it becomes useless. Towards the 17th century it was phasing out due to people become more civilized and it's cost-to-usefulness plummeted. Without the arms race a one lighter blades trended in, hand and a halfs to rapiers. They continued to become lighter and more skill based from rapiers to shortswords to the foil and epee. All of which were never designed to see a use outside of light civilian defense or sport. Sort of like a 9mm handgun vs why don't everyone own a 10 gauge full bore. Anyway, some depictions in movies suggest that during the longsword/foil era offhand daggers were used TWF super style. But in truth they were designed to parry, they were used offensively as often as you would throw a punch or kick. And the usage of them was killed off in favor of balance & speed by using a single blade against unarmored targets and devoting the rest of your body to mobility.

Dual Wielding is, and always has been, a fairly ineffective style. The transition from slaughter every Tuesday to civilian defense forces was it's peak as armor phased out. It's just fucking cool as tits on a female and usage of normally unusable things (sic bluffing in poker) is a staple of badassery and the definition of competent heroes. And where there is people determined to do something, there are special cases of effectiveness.

[brujon]

I think we have all being going about this TWF vs S&B vs THF the wrong way.

Heroes are, by definition, exceptional individuals. Whatever your hero character specializes in, he will be amazing at it, no doubt about it. Because of this, it's useless to use arguments such as "Dual Wielding is ineffective because you have to be ambidextrous, nimble, agile, and super awesome in order to use it effectively!".

You're playing a hero character, if that's what it takes to be awesome at dual wielding, then he possesses those characteristics, at least if you're optimizing properly. The same thing applies to S&B and to THF.

No matter what conjectures we try to summon here, the fact of the matter is, there are very few historical accounts of dual wielding in actual battle, and even fewer historical accounts that describe in precise details a confrontation between two different styles, such as S&B vs THF or S&B vs TWF or any combination thereof.

Because of this, we can't really ascertain with precision the degree of effectiveness a given technique would have on those specific scenarios. Unfortunately, a two-handed swordsman wearing full-plate against a nimble Nitenryu samurai is something that will only happen in games or in our heads.

That's not even taking into account all the other fighting styles that were prevalent over the centuries. Like Spear + Shield, Long Spear, Polearm, only using a one-handed weapon with no shield...

In the end, in order to make a game enjoyable, all that really matters is that you try and find a balance between all the popular different fighting styles, so that no one style is strictly superior to the other - if only in order to accomodate several different players that want to each play a different kind of warrior without them feeling shunned by the other players decision.

In order to do that, sometimes, you just have to "go with the flow" and use movie/game logic. Like the fact that you can attack twice as much because you're using twice as many weapons. Or that using a sword with two hands equates to exactly 150% more power than using it only with one hand. Or that the hero that uses a polearm/spear is insanely proficient in it's use, but fails to grasp the SIMPLE concept of short hafting the reach weapon in order to hit enemies that are closer.

There's a hundred things wrong with D&D's combat system. Like the fact that combat is, quite frankly, static as hell. No real-world fighting, regardless of style, involves you staying still while your opponent attacks - and it's very difficult to imagine you dodging a full attack of 5+ attacks standing perfectly still inside your 5ft square without backstepping, sidestepping or pushing your opponent back as you parry.

So, basically, the TL;DR version is that we can all stay and circlejerk about it all we want, but in the end, no one has the end-all be-all of arguments for or against dual-wielding, or any one technique over the other. And if were still talking about fighting styles in game, it's pointless to argue about it unless you're looking to reinvent the wheel by designing a game from scratch that has an end-goal of being as realistic as possible... Which, probably wouldn't be any fun to play unless you had a computer assist you in all the calculations involved, or straight up turned all the ideas you had into a virtual simulation.

[ketaro]

Hatsune Miku performing on The Late Show with David Letterman

David seemed pretty perplexed at the end 

Kinda disappointed they had her sing in English too; that's not something Miku is good at