141 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightDeDraco]

 Ok i just beat my second play-through and I just thought to myself, "Self, it would be awsome if there was a chain of abilities that worked with using just a single one handed sword." Now i was just wondering if this was going to ever happen with a patch or dlc or something. also if anyone agrees with me or has any other fighting style ideas feel free to post 'em here! 

[Jedi Rayden]

what would you expect? each style has a reason, what reason would be one hand nothing off hand be?

[Rainen89]

Because most forms of using only one sword adopted a two handed stance or fighting style? Using one sword and only one sword was unheard of. You either gripped it with both hands or you used a shield of some sort. Granted you could try the underhanded occasional jab but that only went so far. Granted they did add dual wield into the game and no one's ever really perfected that fighting style...ever.

[Jedi Rayden]

@Rainen89



I thought this game did awesome with dual weilding.

[Foxd1e]

ME WANT HONEYCOMBS NOW!!

[Rainen89]

They did but dual wielding in real world application was unheard of. You either fought with a slightly bigger weapon, a weapon with a shield or a bow.

[Faerell Gustani]

Actually, having an off and free can be for a few reasons:

1. Balance

2. Grab/Grappling

3. Disarms and Shield Stripping



Granted, usually having a dagger or shield in the off-hand is better, but there are uses for having an open off-hand.

[Foxd1e]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Actually, having an off and free can be for a few reasons:
1. Balance
2. Grab/Grappling
3. Disarms and Shield Stripping

Granted, usually having a dagger or shield in the off-hand is better, but there are uses for having an open off-hand.

He's right, uses like dying more

[Rainen89]

Right, but this was in one-one combat not open scale war. Using your hand had practical uses but they only went so far. Even then someone who used a one handed sword with open fist would use it like a two handed weapons. In war people used bows/shield + sword/ Or slightly bigger weapons. Dual wielding hardly ever existed, ever.

[Jasioptasio]

You don't have to be so serious about this. Look for Gothic 1 for e.g. Wasn't one handed swords fun?

[Jasioptasio]

You don't have to be so serious about this. /look for Gothic 1. Wasn't that fun, to wield only a one handed sword?

[Mistress9Nine]

Jasioptasio wrote...

You don't have to be so serious about this. /look for Gothic 1. Wasn't that fun, to wield only a one handed sword?

/agrees

This was one of the things I always want to do in games but they rarely give me the opportunity. However in Gothic 1-2 it wasn't a choice as there were no shields at all IIRC.

[Rainen89]

Honestly i'd much rather have a one handed weapon line than dual wielding, especially for rogues/duelist (especially.) But, sigh.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Let 1handed swords use the 2h talent tree and animations if there's nothing in the other hand slot- Simple.



Still inferior to every other combo, but that's only normal.

[Seclus]

one handed fighting style should have been added. but I think it should have been useful to the other styles as well. much like a mage can cast from every school it would have been skills that any style could use. it could have 3 lines for the 3 main weapons sword, axe and mace. this would make being a single weapon fighter possible. still limited but would improve those who want to gain a few extra skills while still specilzing in dual or 2h or S&B. It would make us seem more virstile like how mages feel. Maybe they will do this for the sequal *crosses fingers*

[jdeneweth]

1. Balance - how much better balance do you really have with an empty hand as opposed to shield or off hand? It is a +1 bonus or enough of an advantage to make an entire combat style over?



2. Grab/Grappling - couldn't I just drop my off hand weapon to grab?



3. Disarms and Shield Stripping - same as 2, overall these points make real world 1h style not as bad as one would think, but its always going to be worse than dual weild or sword and board. I would also argue that its probably easier to disarm someone with a weapon in your off hand than by grabbing it, especially if they are using a blade. I drop things pretty quickly when I'm stabbed, but if you tried to wrestle a sword out of my hands I think I could manage to hold on while removing your thumb.

Since combat styles are the focus of your training it doesn't really make much sense that you would train for losing your off hand. You might plan for how to make use of your off hand if disarmed or shield stripped, but you certainly wouldn't want to start a fight like that.

[Faerell Gustani]

Regarding Balance, you would be surprised at how much superior leverage and balance you can get if you have a free off hand.



I actually forgot about another thing about single sword: flexibility. There are many trick strikes you can pull off by twisting you arm and wrist. Having 2 hands on the weapon or having a shield in your off-hand will likely get in the way or telegraph your move too much.

But again, dual wielders would be able to pull off these same moves.

[Bluto_Longneck]

We could have a handful of dirt in the off-hand and throw it the opponents eyes, to gain a few seconds of blindness.



On a rogue, that fits nicely with dirty fighting

[kingthrall]

this topic is like why are there no polearms. its because dragon age got lazy and made lame excuses to why its not in the game:)

[jdeneweth]

I've no doubt a free hand provides great balance. I've nearly fallen dozens of time IRL only to find myself flailing my arms about out of instinct and somehow regaining balance. I'm just wondering how much the weight of a dagger or a shield would hamper that effect. I think the realistic point would be you either couldn't use your off hand to balance while preforming a block or attack, or you couldn't block or attack while balancing. From a game design perspective that seems really hard to implement. I could understand a physical resist bonus for having a free off hand. I just don't see how they piece together a combat style with four trees with four skills each.

I agree with your second point more, but reach the same conclusion that it would always be better to at least have a dagger in your off hand to parry or make a well timed stab after disrupting your opponent's balance with your main hand strike.

[RetrOldSchool]

Bluto_Longneck wrote...

We could have a handful of dirt in the off-hand and throw it the opponents eyes, to gain a few seconds of blindness.

On a rogue, that fits nicely with dirty fighting

there could be a rogue only skill tree for a one-handed-dirty fighting style, whith focus on quickness and dirty tricks like the on you mentioned.

[Faerell Gustani]

A dagger, wouldn't affect balance much. A shield? Definitely would screw up your balance as well as limit your attack range.



As for actual skill trees.

I would have 1 tree devoted to balance and flexibility: increased attack rating and increased physical resist

another tree devoted to disarm/grapple.

and a third tree devoted to throwing your off-had weapon as a ranged attack.



Also, the weapon styles only have 3 trees, not 4. Only magic has 4 per style.

[royen1]

Signed. If you look at historical sources, the longsword was probably used on its own at least as often as it was with a shield. This allowed for grappling moves as well as moves specifically developed to penetrate armor, such as the halbschwert technique where you would grab the blade with your off hand for extra leverage when thrusting at your opponent.



Yes, I'm a nerd.

[Rainen89]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

A dagger, wouldn't affect balance much. A shield? Definitely would screw up your balance as well as limit your attack range.

As for actual skill trees.
I would have 1 tree devoted to balance and flexibility: increased attack rating and increased physical resist
another tree devoted to disarm/grapple.
and a third tree devoted to throwing your off-had weapon as a ranged attack.

Also, the weapon styles only have 3 trees, not 4. Only magic has 4 per style.

A shield would not affect your balance at all, there were many, many small shields with metal studs or just plain bucklers that were used very successfully with one handed weapons. Not all shields used were large tower/round shields. Many were used as a weapon. Longsword was used as a one handed, but also as a two handed weapon. Fact of the matter is there is no universal rule that says because you can hold this and wield this with one arm you have to use, one arm.

There are disabling/disarming techniques but there were just as many that used one handed with free arm as there were shield / two handed applications. Either way in an actual army you would find many, many more people charging with a shield, than you would with an open arm.

Modifié par Rainen89, 13 décembre 2009 - 10:10 .

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

Some shields could be compare to a second hand parry daggert, just more blunt methods... they kept the focus simple though in this game as it is, two handed, shield/weapon and dual wield for direct melee, I find it rather usefull as it is though with teh current system.



one sword only would make your more vulnerable I guess, as well as why to worry about when we got two handed swords as well as dual wield.