124 réponses à ce sujet

[Orogun01]

uly wrote...

Aye, but melee dual wielding is a different story altogether.  Most novice dual wielders have the tendency of either alternating between main and off-hand for attack, or simply use the off-hand weapon exclusively for defense.  In the first case, the gain on rate of attack is negligeable, but the loss on control, force and body balance is considerable, not to mention the fact that it usually puts you in a more vulnerable form and position.  In the latter case, the advantage to defense does not compensate for the loss on offense, and again it puts you in a less defensive stance to begin with.  I've never trained with sword&shield, but I can't imagine a main gauche being a better defensive instrument than a shield.

Almost every school that specialize in two weapon fighting will tell you that, to be truely efficient, one must be able to use both hands independantly and in concert, and both offensively and defensively.  That takes not only a good dose of natural ambidextrous talent, as well as excellent body balance and of course years of practice.  Shooting a gun in one hand while reloading in another at least cuts down the reload downtime, but not being able to attack simultaneously with two swords means the dual wielder is forever at a disadvantage against a single-sword foe.

Is the trade off of dual wielding compared to single. With dual wielding you get the chance to attack and defend simultaneously with less freedom of movement. But it falls to the skill of the wielder and not to some inherent disadvantage.

[Sigiz]

2 handed swords arent that heavy, nor cumbersome. sure,t hey are not the best tool in a confined space, but then again, if you have a twohander, you most often also have some back up weapons at your disposal. The advantage if the twohander should be obvious.

Your reach is superior to other one handers or twohanders, combine it with full plate armour and you're near untouchable regarding melee. Also, other polearms, like the halberd, spears and pikes which have less damaging points, can be swathed aside, the polearm itself can be cut off if the metalbars doesn't protect it.

If you want some medieval world without fantasy, try Mount&Blade. Grisly spiked mace to the face will fell most enemies, and a couched lance hitting is sure to unhorse (and also kill, if you use a piercing weapon like spear or lance, or knock unconscious of you use a blunt lance) any enemy.

That said, if I was going melee, I'd take a twohander over dualwield or shield and sword any day, if only for sheer brute looks.

edited for better margins and all.. easier to read is all...

Modifié par Sigiz, 17 novembre 2009 - 03:13 .

[Malcroix]

[quote]uly wrote...

No, not really.  Just that... am I the only one who thinks that there are too many dual wielders in DAO?

In real life and most fantasy fictions, dual wielders are relatively rare.  And for good reason, too: dual wielding is inherently unintuitive and inefficient[/quote]

Totally untrue. Basic dual-wielding is extremely intuitive AND efficient. When I started my swordsmanship training, I took a dagger in my left hand to complement the longsword. I had to use a steel gauntlet because naturally my left hand wasn't as nimble in protecting itself as my right. But the combination of gauntlet + daga (broad dagger with large guard) = ownage against equal skill opponents armed only with a longsword. Soon people were saying I didn't play fair 8=) But ever since I pursued the dual-wielding path, graduating to dual longswords, and never regretted it.


[quote]and a dual weapons fighting techniques invariably require more training to master.[/quote]

That is definitely true. The ADVANCED DW techniques demand more agility and coordination from the body than sword-and-shield, two-handed sword, or pike styles.

[quote]Of course, there are schools that specialise in dual weapon fighting, but even then the actual dual weapon fighting part are often reserved for advanced practitioners[/quote]

That is true for SOME schools, namely those with a "traditionalistic" approach to training. They're the type of schools that will teach you to breathe properly for a year before actually showing you any fighting moves. We never subscribed to this theory, and most efficient SPORT fencing clubs do not. You've gotta learn right from the start. If you wanna use a 2-hander, you gotta whirl around a heavy steel shaft. If you wanna use 2 swords, gotta practice with 2 right from the beginning. This forges reflexes, and musculature.

[quote]Beertastic wrote...

to rhalcepx516: He's referring to real life swordsmanship. Dual wielding in real life is not practical, and a easy way to get yourself killed (not that we use melee weapons anymore anyway).[/quote]

[quote]Haexpane wrote...

Yes, REAL LIFE dual wielding is a pipe dream. [/quote]

That is TOTAL BULL. Dual-wielding is so eminently practical it's one of the staples of ANY melee culture. You've got rich dual-wielding traditions in ancient/medieval/Renaissance Europe, in China, Japan, Indonesia - everywhere. Dual-wielding sword styles are extensively used in today's Chinese martial arts sports. And coming from an actual PRACTITIONER - dual-wielding is extremely strong and hard to defend against. 

[quote]Garrand wrote...

Dual wielding bulky, heavy weapons like a longsword (even some shortswords) in a real life melee is asking to get killed, in the appropriate time period. [/quote]

Again, garbage.

First off, a londsword is neither bulky nor heavy. It's a meticulously designed weapon perfected by centuries of warfare.

Second, dual-wielding is not for pike formations (like the phalanx or the Swiss formation). It's for dueling, skirmishing, flanking.

[quote]Today of course you would get to hear them laugh before a handgun is pulled on you.[/quote]

It may surprise you to know how many thugs are actually not toting firearms.

[quote]rahlcepx516 wrote...

They SHOULD be able to DW two handers[/quote]

Now THIS is a completely moronic notion. I believe the subject has already been discussed in another thread. Dual-wielding two-handers is stupid, period.

[quote]menasure wrote...

i'd say dual wielding is a specialized technique to raise your chance to hit in real life because it's a whole lot harder to block 2 weapons at once. [/quote]

That is true, but not only that - DW allows for great defense-offense alteration, stunning and surprising combinations that confuse enemies and kill them quickly.

[quote]the downside is that you can not put your full strength into the blows [quote]

First, you can.

Second, there's this thing called momentum - yep, just like the ability in the game. It actually INCREASES the speed and power of your attacks as compared to a single sword.

Okay, well enough with the people who know nothing about the subject, now let's move on to those actually acquanted with the matter.

[Malcroix]

uly wrote...

Aye, but melee dual wielding is a different story altogether.  Most novice dual wielders have the tendency of either alternating between main and off-hand for attack, or simply use the off-hand weapon exclusively for defense.  In the first case, the gain on rate of attack is negligeable, but the loss on control, force and body balance is considerable, not to mention the fact that it usually puts you in a more vulnerable form and position.  In the latter case, the advantage to defense does not compensate for the loss on offense, and again it puts you in a less defensive stance to begin with.  I've never trained with sword&shield, but I can't imagine a main gauche being a better defensive instrument than a shield.... the dual wielder is forever at a disadvantage against a single-sword foe.

If you mean a sword-and-shield foe, then perhaps, without the specific DW techniques simply using a dagger in your off-hand will not cut it. But against a single-sword? It's a massive advantage which I have experienced myself. Even JUST using the left to block sword cuts and sometimes THREATEN the opponent, leaves your right FREE to attack.

Almost every school that specialize in two weapon fighting will tell you that, to be truely efficient, one must be able to use both hands independantly and in concert, and both offensively and defensively.  That takes not only a good dose of natural ambidextrous talent, as well as excellent body balance and of course years of practice. 

That is completely true.

[Jassper]

I have to agree with Malcroix on this. As a Martial Artist myself - two sticks are better than one, BUT you do need to know what you are doing, if you don't you will leave yourself wide open - game over.



And for those that think you should be able to DW two-handers, I suggest you make a trip to the History Museum in Chicago IL. Take a look at their collection of two-handers. These are REAL swords and not the cheapies you find on the internet. Look at how much they weigh then tell me you are going to swing them around in each hand. If you want a good Idea - put a 5lb weight on the end of a 4 foot pole, see how long you can swing it around (and how slow it is).

[Ultrazennn]

Anytime the words reality and/or realism end up in a conversation concerning a video game that involves fireballs and dragons, I always get a good chuckle.

[Dauphin2]

Gabochido wrote...

For most people, "reality" regarding sword combat is based on what they see in movies. Since most of the stuff in movie is only loosely based on real life and has a lot of fanciful choreography added to make it look cool, the "reality" presented in Dragon Age should also be easy to accept for most people.

While the part of what we wanted to get across with the weapon styles was that it looked humanly feasable, we also wanted it to look cool and we also wanted people to see it a lot since it does indeed look quite cool.

I like that philosophy. Why make something incredibly cool looking if nobody ever sees it. 

[Ace Attorney]

All big cultures use Dual Wielding, even Japan's Samurai included Jitte use in their off-hand Bushido training.

[exerci]

The short version:



If you're dualwielding, I'd like to see you do any damage with your off-hand weapon to that guy in the plated armor without sacrificing normal swings. If you're not using it offensively, you should use a shield.



Honestly. In real life, there hasn't ever been any actual military use of dual wielding weapons. If using the main gauche, you're probably (no, definitely) not as well defended as if you're using an actual shield. You're also not any more effective offensively, as pretty much everyone would be wearing some sort of armor, and getting in close enough to actually hitting with that would be rather suicidal. Someone is targeting you with an arrow? Well ****, you should've brought your shield. Someone is in close? Well, if you're sword'n'boarding at him, then either you've got a heater, which will make your offense roughly equivalent, but your defense better than him (You can still bash people in the face with a heater and throw them off guard), if you're wielding a big-ass twohanded weapon, then his dualwielding will not stop your weapon if you swing it full force, and your range beats his. (Or stab, you might have a spear)



Honestly. I'd like to see an example of someone who actually used dualwielding against competent opponents in history. Someone mentioned Escrima earlier. Excuse me, what part of Escrima did not consist of swinging your stuff as the Spanish Conquistadores beat the crap out of them? Whoever died on the Spanish side pretty much died due to arrows.



And for people who say "Lol, this isn't a realistic game, people cast spells". The world very clearly has a lot of similarities to the world we live in. People bleed when cut, they die from those cuts, their blood is red, iron is generally harder than someone's face, gravity works as it should, campfires are hot, grease burns, ice can quench fire.



Twohanded weaponstyles, and sword'n'board weaponstyles work roughly the same as in real life as well.



Consider how dual striking would work in real life. Attacking with both weapons whenever you attack? Consider how quickly your opponent would murder that if he was a competent soldier.



In general, Dragon Age works as a complete foil of medieval Europe, with fantastical elements such as fantastical races and mages. But people not related to any of those work pretty much exactly as in Europe, 1300 A.D. Hammers>Axes>Swords on armored targets, as it should be, poison works the same way. Honestly. Except for those few fantastical elements, like magic working, and the races existing, then people are normal.

[uly]

Dauphin2 wrote...

Gabochido wrote...

For most people, "reality" regarding sword combat is based on what they see in movies. Since most of the stuff in movie is only loosely based on real life and has a lot of fanciful choreography added to make it look cool, the "reality" presented in Dragon Age should also be easy to accept for most people.

While the part of what we wanted to get across with the weapon styles was that it looked humanly feasable, we also wanted it to look cool and we also wanted people to see it a lot since it does indeed look quite cool.

I like that philosophy. Why make something incredibly cool looking if nobody ever sees it. 

Well, I don't.  I think the really cool stuff should come sparingly.  I don't subscribe to the Final Fantasy school of eye candy saturation.

Orogun01 wrote...
Is the trade off of dual wielding compared to single. With dual
wielding you get the chance to attack and defend simultaneously with
less freedom of movement. But it falls to the skill of the wielder and
not to some inherent disadvantage.

Yes, of course it falls in the end to one's skill.  But I submit that, because dual wielding requires more specialized talent and training, the skill is inherently more difficult to acquire, hence dual wielding is inherently disadvantageous.

Modifié par uly, 17 novembre 2009 - 05:06 .

[leoleez]

Umm some of these comments seem to have very little experience...
I can dual wield two swords, a sword and a dagger. DW 2H swords though is ridiculous.
I wish they added more weapons, like Kamas and stuff cause I would totally use a Kama in my off-hand (which for some reason is the left which is my dominant hand), and I do use Kamas in my off-hand. DW is actually quite effiecient, just hard to master. Koreans actually have a rigorous fighting style that had been used for various generations focused on dual wielding two blades. In fact most asian cultures do. It however leaves much room for mistakes and you defenseless b/c you are without a shield. I wish they played this more in DAO, like in Diablo DW got their accuracy lowered (which is not neccesarily realistic), from my experience you attack swifter, but you hit less hard, as you focus on getting the enemy vulnerable before striking for the win. Some forms are fast moving and others focus on blocking (not as efficient as a shield however).
However I feel what some of you felt, they sacraficed realism for just pure fun. Games don't have to be 100% real do they? Seriously if you enjoy a good magic system, I'm pretty sure you realise magic is not real, so there.

[Gabo]

uly wrote...

In real life and most fantasy fictions, dual wielders are relatively rare.  And for good reason, too: dual wielding is inherently unintuitive and inefficient, and a dual weapons fighting techniques invariably require more training to master. 

That said, I personally love dual wielding.  I just think that it's too depreciated in DAO.  In D&D and some other rules, dual wielding is appropriately reserved for certain martial classes and require more investment than other fighting styles.  But in DAO, about one third of all warriors and every other rogue is a dual-wielder, it's just very awkward.

I think there definitely should have been a single weapon fighting style, so that melee rogues have at least an alternative to dual wielding.  Dual wielding talents should also provide less benefits on lower tiers, only give out significant bonuses at maybe tier 3 or 4.  An amateur dual wielder should be at a disadvantage relative to other styles.

To answer your question specifically, DA has its own reality and in here, there are (currently) 3 melee fighting styles for humanoids: sword and shield, two handed weapon and dual weapon. Since each one is relatively balanced, it makes sense that about one third of the enemies use each style when engaging in melee combat.

This was a design desicion. We could have made most creatures use a single weapon or weapon and shield so that the dual weapons and two handed weapons felt special, but we felt it was better to have a good balance of all the styles. In addition, making the level development of any style be weaker at first and more powerful later on tends to alienate most people from trying out that style. At the end of the day, to have a good game you have to go with what works and what feels best to most people, and believe me, we tried quite a few designs for each style.

The resulting sytles may go against some of the perceived reality of other fantasy fiction settings but it works well for DA (at least according to the designers, the focus group testing and, I'm glad to say, most of the people currently playing it) and its certainly not the only thing to differ from other fantasy settings.

[Jassper]

exerci wrote...

if you're wielding a big-ass twohanded weapon, then his dualwielding will not stop your weapon if you swing it full force, and your range beats his. (Or stab, you might have a spear)

Thats when you back step and let his swing follow through. I'll bet you 10 to 1 that I can move in close and stab 3 times before you bring that heavy a** weapon back around. Any one would be an idiot to try and stop a two-hander coming at you at full force with a light weapon. DW relies on speed, two-hander relies on brut force, speed will usually win.

Bottom line - Each style has it's own advantages and disadvantages as well as Ideal and non-ideal situations. It boils down to how good your opponent is, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Skemte]

Gabochido wrote...

uly wrote...

In real life and most fantasy fictions, dual wielders are relatively rare.  And for good reason, too: dual wielding is inherently unintuitive and inefficient, and a dual weapons fighting techniques invariably require more training to master. 

That said, I personally love dual wielding.  I just think that it's too depreciated in DAO.  In D&D and some other rules, dual wielding is appropriately reserved for certain martial classes and require more investment than other fighting styles.  But in DAO, about one third of all warriors and every other rogue is a dual-wielder, it's just very awkward.

I think there definitely should have been a single weapon fighting style, so that melee rogues have at least an alternative to dual wielding.  Dual wielding talents should also provide less benefits on lower tiers, only give out significant bonuses at maybe tier 3 or 4.  An amateur dual wielder should be at a disadvantage relative to other styles.

To answer your question specifically, DA has its own reality and in here, there are (currently) 3 melee fighting styles for humanoids: sword and shield, two handed weapon and dual weapon. Since each one is relatively balanced, it makes sense that about one third of the enemies use each style when engaging in melee combat.

This was a design desicion. We could have made most creatures use a single weapon or weapon and shield so that the dual weapons and two handed weapons felt special, but we felt it was better to have a good balance of all the styles. In addition, making the level development of any style be weaker at first and more powerful later on tends to alienate most people from trying out that style. At the end of the day, to have a good game you have to go with what works and what feels best to most people, and believe me, we tried quite a few designs for each style.

The resulting sytles may go against some of the perceived reality of other fantasy fiction settings but it works well for DA (at least according to the designers, the focus group testing and, I'm glad to say, most of the people currently playing it) and its certainly not the only thing to differ from other fantasy settings.

  Can't help but think that the two hander is sorely lacking.. Not only is it one of the most blandest of skills to watch.. But the slow speed as well the miss rate seems to be extremey behind from dual wielding.

[Gabo]

uly wrote...

Dauphin2 wrote...

Gabochido wrote...

For most people, "reality" regarding sword combat is based on what they see in movies. Since most of the stuff in movie is only loosely based on real life and has a lot of fanciful choreography added to make it look cool, the "reality" presented in Dragon Age should also be easy to accept for most people.

While the part of what we wanted to get across with the weapon styles was that it looked humanly feasable, we also wanted it to look cool and we also wanted people to see it a lot since it does indeed look quite cool.

I like that philosophy. Why make something incredibly cool looking if nobody ever sees it. 

Well, I don't.  I think the really cool stuff should come sparingly.  I don't subscribe to the Final Fantasy school of eye candy saturation.

You'll be glad to know that the realy over-the-top finishing animations are played very sparingly.

However, our testing and analysis has shown that most people love seeing cool things over and over again so we tried to make things that are shown all the time simple but still cool.

[uly]

Gabochido wrote...
To answer your question specifically, DA has its own reality and in here, there are (currently) 3 melee fighting styles for humanoids: sword and shield, two handed weapon and dual weapon. Since each one is relatively balanced, it makes sense that about one third of the enemies use each style when engaging in melee combat.

This was a design desicion. We could have made most creatures use a single weapon or weapon and shield so that the dual weapons and two handed weapons felt special, but we felt it was better to have a good balance of all the styles. In addition, making the level development of any style be weaker at first and more powerful later on tends to alienate most people from trying out that style. At the end of the day, to have a good game you have to go with what works and what feels best to most people, and believe me, we tried quite a few designs for each style.

The resulting sytles may go against some of the perceived reality of other fantasy fiction settings but it works well for DA (at least according to the designers, the focus group testing and, I'm glad to say, most of the people currently playing it) and its certainly not the only thing to differ from other fantasy settings.

Okay, that's actually a very reasonable answer.  Thanks for the clarification.

So yes, I understand you can't cater to every tastes, but may I suggest that DAO can still benefite greatly from one or two additional fighting styles?  If nothing else, it at least gives melee rogues a choice at all.  It seems bizarre to me that dual wielding should be the only melee choice for any character build.

A single weapon style not only makes realism sense, it could also make gameplay sense.  It could grant a defense bonus (due to better balance and smaller profile), or an agility bonus that translates into reduced aggro.  It could provide other forms of bonuses to make it a good secondary style; for example, arcane warriors may cast spells without sheathing the weapon, rogues get an in-combat steal and disarm trap, certain status ailments (like stun) last shorter, so on and so forth.

The game now switch between weapon sets near instantaneously.  But if they take longer -- and they should -- single weapon style could also benefit from a faster switching.

Anyway, I just think the 3 styles in DAO are a bit limiting.  A single weapon style seems utterly natural to have.  But I'd also like to see even more fighting style choices in future expansions that will surely come.  A style for pole arms would certainly enrich the world greatly; spears are afterall the most basic of all weapons.  A different style of sword+shield that focuses more on lighter shields would also be welcome.  It's yet another alternative for rogues who may want to tank a bit.  And let's face it, without such a style, who would ever use a small shield anyway?

Modifié par uly, 17 novembre 2009 - 05:32 .

[EXTINCTION XL]

BluesMan1956 wrote...

If we want realism, let's get rid of the magic...and the darkspawn...and the dragons and other mythical creatures. Heck, let's just toss this and play CSI....

 lol
This is the exact redundant arguement I used to see on fallout 3 forums, because you are in a fantasy game it makes it even more enjoyable if the fighting is realistic in some ways. Because it's rooted in reality a little it helps immerse you in the game by suspending your disbelief, imho.

[Gabo]

Skemte wrote...
Can't help but think that the two hander is sorely lacking.. Not only is it one of the most blandest of skills to watch.. But the slow speed as well the miss rate seems to be extremey behind from dual wielding.

A lot of people find that two hander feels the most powerful and rewarding style. The style is balanced out because its hits are quite damaging but the best things about it, in my personal opinion, are the special abilities...

(Strategy tip comming up)

specially the one that makes you inmune to knockbacks. That one is very useful against large creatures that constanly knock down any nearby party members.

(end of strategy tip)

It is impossible to have everyone like every design choice, but the idea in DA is to give everyone a choice they do like. If 2H combat is too slow for you, you can choose the other styles. This freedom of choice is another reason for why we decided to make dual wielding just as accesible as the other styles.

[Malcroix]

uly wrote...


A single weapon style not only makes realism sense

To be frank, it makes less sense than the other 3 styles. Melee with only one single-handed weapon? Not really done. The only decent example I can think of are the duelists in the epoch of absolutist Europe (post-Renaissance, pre-New Age). And they were a particularly DECADENT bunch, devolving martial, battlefield swordsmanship into a foil-play ritual with a lot of ridiculous rules and limitations.

Even then, though, dual-weapon style was known and feared (you can read about the "Spanish stance" with rapier and dagger in the Dumas novels, for instance). Duelists were always looking for advantage, and often found it in main-gauche daggers, or even something as simple as a cape wrapped around the left hand (though the latter was used more as a shield, it could be used offensively, obscuring the opponent's field of vision etc.).

On the battlefield, however, no one used single-handed weapons only (except maybe latter-day light cavalry). These same duelists would arm themselves with an arquebuse, musket, or pike, and use the rapier (or katzbalger, etc.) only as a backup weapon.

In my practice, an opponent armed with only a single one-handed weapon is the easiest of them all. He loses out to shield, to zweihander, and to dual weapons. It's not a style a mediaeval warrior would want to specialise in. So its absence from Dragon Age is actually quite logical.

Baldur's Gate had single weapon style, but let's not forget that it was treating, for example, katana as a one-handed weapon, whereas in reality it is actually a two-handed sword (closer to the European bastard sword in size, but still). The only occasion it was wielded in one hand was when dual-wielding (Miyamoto Musashi style).

So for me, no big loss without single-weapon style. Dual Weapons were actually implemented nicely in this game, so thanks, Bioware.

[Sereaph502]

exerci wrote...

The short version:

If you're dualwielding, I'd like to see you do any damage with your off-hand weapon to that guy in the plated armor without sacrificing normal swings. If you're not using it offensively, you should use a shield.

Honestly. In real life, there hasn't ever been any actual military use of dual wielding weapons. If using the main gauche, you're probably (no, definitely) not as well defended as if you're using an actual shield. You're also not any more effective offensively, as pretty much everyone would be wearing some sort of armor, and getting in close enough to actually hitting with that would be rather suicidal. Someone is targeting you with an arrow? Well ****, you should've brought your shield. Someone is in close? Well, if you're sword'n'boarding at him, then either you've got a heater, which will make your offense roughly equivalent, but your defense better than him (You can still bash people in the face with a heater and throw them off guard), if you're wielding a big-ass twohanded weapon, then his dualwielding will not stop your weapon if you swing it full force, and your range beats his. (Or stab, you might have a spear)

Honestly. I'd like to see an example of someone who actually used dualwielding against competent opponents in history. Someone mentioned Escrima earlier. Excuse me, what part of Escrima did not consist of swinging your stuff as the Spanish Conquistadores beat the crap out of them? Whoever died on the Spanish side pretty much died due to arrows.

And for people who say "Lol, this isn't a realistic game, people cast spells". The world very clearly has a lot of similarities to the world we live in. People bleed when cut, they die from those cuts, their blood is red, iron is generally harder than someone's face, gravity works as it should, campfires are hot, grease burns, ice can quench fire.

Twohanded weaponstyles, and sword'n'board weaponstyles work roughly the same as in real life as well.

Consider how dual striking would work in real life. Attacking with both weapons whenever you attack? Consider how quickly your opponent would murder that if he was a competent soldier.

In general, Dragon Age works as a complete foil of medieval Europe, with fantastical elements such as fantastical races and mages. But people not related to any of those work pretty much exactly as in Europe, 1300 A.D. Hammers>Axes>Swords on armored targets, as it should be, poison works the same way. Honestly. Except for those few fantastical elements, like magic working, and the races existing, then people are normal.

I hope you realize this is FANTASY, not real life.  That, and stop thinking the only useful thing is offense offense offense.

You're making yourself look quite silly.

[Jassper]

Skemte wrote...

Can't help but think that the two hander is sorely lacking.. Not only is it one of the most blandest of skills to watch.. But the slow speed as well the miss rate seems to be extremey behind from dual wielding.

As for game play - I agree. But as for "reality" it is quite accurate. This is one of the reason the huge heavy weapons were abandon close to the end of the Medieval days - along with the heavy armor. Shortly after (King Henry Lion hart?) the Christan Crusaders got sliced and diced by unarmored Turks with fast unarmored horses.

I think a lot of you are confusing "two-handed weapons" with "Weapons that can be used with two hands". There is a huge differance.

[Haexpane]

BluesMan1956 wrote...

If we want realism, let's get rid of the magic...and the darkspawn...and the dragons and other mythical creatures. Heck, let's just toss this and play CSI....

CSI is not realistic.

And "realism" in context, please don't pull a straw man.  In the context of DAO 2 handed weapons are slow and heavy, even if it's a sword and not a hammer, they are both the same slow speed... that is unrealistic - IN CONTEXT.

Dual wielding is similar.  In context you should suck at off hand until you train/specialize. However the reality is you don't really need a shield or to specialize.

Zev has become a meat grinder now that I finally have 2 -3 slotted daggers for him w/ good runes.

[Skooge]

Honestly it's a game, comparing it to real life is just silly

[Haexpane]

Skemte wrote...

I personally would have gone two handers.. If it were not for the fact of the slow speed they are and how often they seem to miss with the said slow speed.

Seems to get worse at higher levels, my PC is 2H and white mobs die faster than I can swing because I have morrigan and Zev on offense.

It's quite sad to watch my 2H starfang swing and hit only air 50% of the time because it's so slow.

It's still useful for some yellows and red tho, they take a few more minutes to die.

But zev w/ DW daggers and a special can get off  major stacking DD in no time.  I think my next playthrough I will go DW warrior and see how that goes