You know, it just blows my mind that dual wielding was left out for a dnd oriented game

[Vahnkiljoy]

Just so odd.

[MoNKeZi]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TheMadTemplar:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rilbur:

This is hardly a Dungeons and Dragons game in any way, shape, or form, as DND is a specific trademark. Violating it would have gotten Larian shut down quickly.

As for dual wielding... it's hardly strange; dual wielding, despite it's popularity in fiction, was never a common combat style. The closest you got was using a smaller, lighter off-hand weapon to defend with.

Thats just silly. Duel wielding is hardly a DnD invention.

Indeed the Grey Mouser was using Scalpel and Cat's Claw long before Dungeons and Dragons appeared on the scene.

[Woodburn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OJ191:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von HozzMidnight:

Well you can't inject realism into a fantasy game balance discussion, magic isn't real. I am talking strictly play balance, having dex based crushing weapons would make the early game easier for a Rogue character. But you could certainly justify having blackjacks do crushing (which they do) but also being dex based and capable of backstab.

Well it's an interesting point certainly, blackjacks are one of the (or even maybe just THE) only cases where I would say having dex increase damage would be fair, because they are traditionally used to suddenly knock someone over the back of the head without warning (ie dex/agility).

How about staff combat? When I think of someone fighting with a staff I think of monks and martial artist type peoples

[Dorok]

Rogue hits two times at each attack, ok with one weapon but it's closing dual wielding.

There's many great to very good combats mechanism but yeah the game doesn't have them all, dual wielding, but also:
- All the throwing is absent (major ie long range with a strong Strength base and possibilities of bludgeoning damages or spike damages, possibilities of throwing various objects on enemies).
- There's no slings (major ie long range with bludgeoning damages and nope it's not strength based).
- There's no multi damages types weapons as Flail.
- No hand/feet fighting as the famous monks.
- No head/limb/arm shot or damages system.
- No wound system.
- No enemy weapon drop system.
- No morphing skills.
- Certainly more.

But yeah for some reason I don't share (probably that for many players dual weapons feel more aggressive and weapons are the coolest item so equip two is the final achievement in a RPG player life) dual wielding is probably the more popular missing element even if bare hand fighting is probably close.

[Keyboard Warrior]

As said, leaving one hand free means you attack twice, so you are practically wielding two of the same weapon from your main hand.

[Baldunkle]

Dual Weilding was invented by World of Warcraft not Deendee, whatever that is. Get your facts straight. If they tried to put DW in the game, they'd have Blizzard lawyers all over them.

[Revolucas]

Aren't there goblins who duel wield? So the animation is there if they use same skeleton for all humanoids.

[Mytheos]

I think based on the stats in this game, having both Dex and STR weapons would cause too much issue.

I like how they decided to make STR melee and Dex Ranged.

You dont have to worry about, Do I have enough Dex to hit?

Will the STR weapons be better or the Dex?

It keeps characters more focused, and you dont have to guess at end game weapons in designing your character...either way its less wasted points.


I know most games say something like...Melee is 75% from STR and 25% from Dex, and to hit is 75% from Dex and 25% from STR.

Which really all that does is make you understand if you have trouble hitting you should add a bit to dex and spreads out your points.

This game keeps it more simple and less convoluted...and honestly from a logic standpoint it works.

If you are SO strong that swinging a sword is like swinging a small stick, you are going to be slinging that sword around VERY fast, so fast it'd be almost impossible to dodge.

[Athlon-x86]

This is not DnD, mate. Anyhow most people that play DnD don't do the dual wield thing correctly anyhow.

[feralgal]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Dunjeon:

This is not DnD, mate. Anyhow most people that play DnD don't do the dual wield thing correctly anyhow.

I was just going to post that. This is a classless system. To me, it's about as far from DnD as you can get.

[ppaladin123]

D&D is a stand-in term for pretty much all fantasy pen and paper rpgs because people don't know about GURPS, savage worlds, warriors and warlocks, and so on. But yeah, this is a point-buy, classless rpg system. There are pluses and minuses to that and some people prefer one style over the other.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if unarmed combat and dual-weilding were added by mods later.

[OJ191]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Woodburn:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OJ191:

Well it's an interesting point certainly, blackjacks are one of the (or even maybe just THE) only cases where I would say having dex increase damage would be fair, because they are traditionally used to suddenly knock someone over the back of the head without warning (ie dex/agility).

How about staff combat? When I think of someone fighting with a staff I think of monks and martial artist type peoples

Eh staffs are crushing damage but I wouldn't really say dex adds to that damage, just the speed and accuracy.

Dex if anything would add attack speed, chance to hit and chance to crowd control, most commonly knockdown but perhaps with a passive skill also a paralysing strike of some kind (pressure point attacks or similar), but definitely not damage imo.

So if you were full dex with a staff you'd be attacking really fast with a high chance to incapacitate but you wouldn't be doing much damage with each individual hit.

[Rilbur]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Hexenhammer:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rilbur:

This is hardly a Dungeons and Dragons game in any way, shape, or form, as DND is a specific trademark. Violating it would have gotten Larian shut down quickly.

Oh dear me. Someone needs to grab their time machine and go back to 1937 and tell Tolkien he can't write about a dual handed ranger because DnD is going is going to trademark it (which it isn't) in 1974.

./me rolleyes

He tried to call this a DND game. I think I was justified in pointing out, quite thoroughly, that it wasn't. And are you sure it isn't trademarked, copywrited, one of those IP things? I can never really keep all of them straight.

[El_Bastardo]

D:OS being a D&D oriented game. nope. certainly, most certainly not. D&D was a tabletop game, long before there were videogames...

WoW invented dual wielding. that's even more ridicoulus (quite hard at this point).

this seems like a troll thread...can't be an honest question oO

[anoonamoos]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TheMadTemplar:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rilbur:

This is hardly a Dungeons and Dragons game in any way, shape, or form, as DND is a specific trademark. Violating it would have gotten Larian shut down quickly.

As for dual wielding... it's hardly strange; dual wielding, despite it's popularity in fiction, was never a common combat style. The closest you got was using a smaller, lighter off-hand weapon to defend with.

Thats just silly. Duel wielding is hardly a DnD invention.

Kinda confused here. There was never any mention of duel wielding being a DnD invention.

[Vahnkiljoy]

Good god, so pathetic how everyone seems to focus on the wrong part and take it all kinds of stupid literal just because I use the term DnD.