It's not realistic, though. It's just too silly. Sure I use it on occasion for fun, or sometimes I have a character who uses a "parrying" dagger, but it's never a standard for me.
It's not realistic, though. It's just too silly. Sure I use it on occasion for fun, or sometimes I have a character who uses a "parrying" dagger, but it's never a standard for me.
@Elrandir IRL too, dual-wielding does have its uses, but only in one-on-one fights. In large engagements, especially with archers, you're screwed if you don't have a shield.
Of course in games we have this handy thing called magic to add to our protections.
I'd point out that Miyamoto Musashi dual-wielded on occasion, but this is also the guy who beat the second-best swordsman of his era with a oar. So the fact that Musashi was able to pull it off probably isn't a good indicator of effectiveness for people who aren't Musashi.
Other than that, dual-wielding was mostly used to pair a dagger with a longer, heavier weapon that was awkward to parry with. Most famously, said weapon would be a rapier. One can also imagine how the dagger would give close-range capabilities that would help compensate for the weaknesses of longer weapons. In general, though, people tended to favor shields. Probably because having a bigass chunk of wood between you and the other guy helps you not die (much better than a parrying dagger would), and most people prefer not dying.
EDIT: Forgot to mention two smaller weapons are often paired in martial arts, but martial arts have a tendency to not be well-tested in actual combat, so I'm not sure how well these styles actually fare. I do understand escrima's pretty effective, though, and that's based entirely around dual-wielding.
Dual weilding is completely practical!!!! Havent you seen the matrix reloaded!!???!!! They did it when they fought neo in the mountain castl.... oh yea that didnt end well... hmmmmmmmmmm
@Jarrakul But escrima is also done with two short sticks, as opposed to longer heavier weapons.
At the very least dual wielding swords is better than, say, axes or maces. With the weight distribution on such weapons it'd be challenging at best to keep yourself either well defended or well balanced. And yes, dual wielding does have some historical backing, but like Sjerrie said, it was mostly a tactic for duels and the like.
Also, carrying even more things makes little practical sense to me for an adventurer. I can't see a truly successful adventurer wearing platemail, or carrying multiple (large) weapons or even a shield. Perhaps a buckler, but for the most part it seems unnecessary weight. My idea of a truly skilled adventurer would be wielding a single blade, (or actually perhaps a parrying knife, since a knife would already be part of their equipment for other purposes) wearing light armour, and keeping themselves mobile.
But I digress. (big time) Sorry for making so many bunnies cry. Back to your regularly scheduled memes!
At the very least dual wielding swords is better than, say, axes or maces. With the weight distribution on such weapons it'd be challenging at best to keep yourself either well defended or well balanced. And yes, dual wielding does have some historical backing, but like Sjerrie said, it was mostly a tactic for duels and the like.
My classic setup is to dual wield flails on my main character or Anomen, Axes and maces on Minsc and longswords and katanas on my other fighter. However, you are clearly correct about the challenges of dual wielding, especially on unwieldy and awkwardly weighted weapons... like my flails
Godd points @Elrandir . I agree with most of what you say. An adventurer would travel light. Leather armour... You would not be able to walk far in anything more... Maybe a hauberk, or chest plate... MAX.
When the fight was imminent, that is when you cracked out the armour.
As for dueling... Would not most the fights an adventure face, be of a duelistic nature? With 6 in a party, it is rare you face 12 or more opponents... We are mostly talking one on one here.
Somebody mentioned this dude earlier... I had to read up about him, as I did not have a clue. I think many anti-sword men out there would love him. His favoured weapon was the bokken, a sword like club, that he would quiet often, sorry @Elrandir , dual so he could conquer multiple foes. Alhough he was a master of many weapons, due to the number of different schools of weaponry he started... Anyway read this...
Personally, I think he was a one off. So my reality adventurer would carry one sword, or axe, or pole-arm and a defensive posture. Shields? No... Think how awkward it is carrying a surfboard in the house... Now multiply this by a thousand in a treacherous dungeon.
@Jarrakul But escrima is also done with two short sticks, as opposed to longer heavier weapons.
Oh, definitely. Escrima is quite flexible, to the point of being usable with anything from bare fists to large knives, but there's no way it'd work with full-sized swords. Even shortswords would probably be pushing it.
As for the feasibility of various armors, I agree that realistically adventurers aren't likely to wear much heavier than a chain shirt most of the time. I disagree on the shield thing, though. Shields come in many shapes and sizes, and while I don't think adventurers would carry full-body shields, I think I'd haul around a three-foot hunk of wood if it meant I could put said hunk of wood between me and the local giant spider population.
Dualling.... Yes, very contaveraial. I can speak to the effectiveness of dualling small weapons. Daggers are relatively easy to control, so you lose very little by have a second one in your off hand, and theoretically, tye person with two weapons always beats the one with a single weapon. You simply lunge and push his sword away and come in and stab with the other hand. As long as you push is sword out enough he cannot reach over and stab you. Make sure you're quick though, otherwise you just run straight into a pointy sword. I would know.
Dual wielding anything larger than a short sword is of course absurd. You cannot go fully offense with tho weapons at once, it's simply to much for a human brain to keep track of. And besides, going full offense gets you stabbed quick so anything like flails or maces is just stupid, unless you were wearing a good suit of full plate, which essentially fully blocks everything but they heaviest or most perfectly places blows. Anything the best arrows from the strongest bow is no more than distracting in a good suit of full plate.
If your opponent has anything in *his* off hand, however, things get very complicated quickly. The ability to dual longsword/bastard swords is also silly. Actually, just 2e longswords themselves are silly. It looks like a rapier with a cross hilt, and it's always weided one handed. Wtf? If you've got that other hand, you may as well use it. This isn't sport fencing, you can do whatever you want with that other hand, and using it to swing the sword seems like a logical use for it. Real life longswords are two handed weapons unless you find something better for your other hand to do, like hold a shield, or go for the eyes.
As for adventurering armor, I can see light chainmail, maybe greaves and bracers, but I think a full breastplate it pushing it and "full plate" is silly. If you went anywhere warm you'd die of heat stroke. The gloves would stop all fine motor skills. It's to heavy(remember real people have to catarrh food and supplies) It takes 3 people to put it one or take it off. Contrary to popular belief movement restriction is not an issue; generally full plate has more mobility than the human body, though it can get heavy. I myself you'd probably go for some sweet black leather and something like a katana and dagger. I have an interesting crossbreed sword I intend to create...
Actually, just 2e longswords themselves are silly. It looks like a rapier with a cross hilt, and it's always weided one handed. Wtf?
It's actually not that silly, except for the name. The D&D longsword is analogous to the historical arming sword, which was a very common one-handed sword typically used with a shield. Even when used without a shield, it didn't have a long enough grip for effective 2-handed use, so the off-hand was generally used for other things, like grabbing your opponent.
Of course, historically speaking, the term "longsword" refers to bastard swords and the like, not the arming sword as the game mechanics imply. So, uh, good job, Gygax.
You simply lunge and push his sword away and come in and stab with the other hand. As long as you push is sword out enough he cannot reach over and stab you. Make sure you're quick though, otherwise you just run straight into a pointy sword.
Alternatively, you can do all that much easier with a one big-ass shield.
Comments
Of course in games we have this handy thing called magic to add to our protections.
Next time, go to your attach file then click insert image that will solve your problem.
Other than that, dual-wielding was mostly used to pair a dagger with a longer, heavier weapon that was awkward to parry with. Most famously, said weapon would be a rapier. One can also imagine how the dagger would give close-range capabilities that would help compensate for the weaknesses of longer weapons. In general, though, people tended to favor shields. Probably because having a bigass chunk of wood between you and the other guy helps you not die (much better than a parrying dagger would), and most people prefer not dying.
EDIT: Forgot to mention two smaller weapons are often paired in martial arts, but martial arts have a tendency to not be well-tested in actual combat, so I'm not sure how well these styles actually fare. I do understand escrima's pretty effective, though, and that's based entirely around dual-wielding.
The same dream, but with a dwarven defender gave me knightmares...
At the very least dual wielding swords is better than, say, axes or maces. With the weight distribution on such weapons it'd be challenging at best to keep yourself either well defended or well balanced. And yes, dual wielding does have some historical backing, but like Sjerrie said, it was mostly a tactic for duels and the like.
Also, carrying even more things makes little practical sense to me for an adventurer. I can't see a truly successful adventurer wearing platemail, or carrying multiple (large) weapons or even a shield. Perhaps a buckler, but for the most part it seems unnecessary weight. My idea of a truly skilled adventurer would be wielding a single blade, (or actually perhaps a parrying knife, since a knife would already be part of their equipment for other purposes) wearing light armour, and keeping themselves mobile.
But I digress. (big time) Sorry for making so many bunnies cry. Back to your regularly scheduled memes!
However, you are clearly correct about the challenges of dual wielding, especially on unwieldy and awkwardly weighted weapons... like my flails
When the fight was imminent, that is when you cracked out the armour.
As for dueling... Would not most the fights an adventure face, be of a duelistic nature? With 6 in a party, it is rare you face 12 or more opponents... We are mostly talking one on one here.
Somebody mentioned this dude earlier... I had to read up about him, as I did not have a clue. I think many anti-sword men out there would love him. His favoured weapon was the bokken, a sword like club, that he would quiet often, sorry @Elrandir , dual so he could conquer multiple foes. Alhough he was a master of many weapons, due to the number of different schools of weaponry he started... Anyway read this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi
Personally, I think he was a one off. So my reality adventurer would carry one sword, or axe, or pole-arm and a defensive posture. Shields? No... Think how awkward it is carrying a surfboard in the house... Now multiply this by a thousand in a treacherous dungeon.
As for the feasibility of various armors, I agree that realistically adventurers aren't likely to wear much heavier than a chain shirt most of the time. I disagree on the shield thing, though. Shields come in many shapes and sizes, and while I don't think adventurers would carry full-body shields, I think I'd haul around a three-foot hunk of wood if it meant I could put said hunk of wood between me and the local giant spider population.
Dual wielding anything larger than a short sword is of course absurd. You cannot go fully offense with tho weapons at once, it's simply to much for a human brain to keep track of. And besides, going full offense gets you stabbed quick so anything like flails or maces is just stupid, unless you were wearing a good suit of full plate, which essentially fully blocks everything but they heaviest or most perfectly places blows. Anything the best arrows from the strongest bow is no more than distracting in a good suit of full plate.
If your opponent has anything in *his* off hand, however, things get very complicated quickly.
The ability to dual longsword/bastard swords is also silly. Actually, just 2e longswords themselves are silly. It looks like a rapier with a cross hilt, and it's always weided one handed. Wtf? If you've got that other hand, you may as well use it. This isn't sport fencing, you can do whatever you want with that other hand, and using it to swing the sword seems like a logical use for it. Real life longswords are two handed weapons unless you find something better for your other hand to do, like hold a shield, or go for the eyes.
As for adventurering armor, I can see light chainmail, maybe greaves and bracers, but I think a full breastplate it pushing it and "full plate" is silly. If you went anywhere warm you'd die of heat stroke. The gloves would stop all fine motor skills. It's to heavy(remember real people have to catarrh food and supplies) It takes 3 people to put it one or take it off. Contrary to popular belief movement restriction is not an issue; generally full plate has more mobility than the human body, though it can get heavy.
I myself you'd probably go for some sweet black leather and something like a katana and dagger. I have an interesting crossbreed sword I intend to create...
Of course, historically speaking, the term "longsword" refers to bastard swords and the like, not the arming sword as the game mechanics imply. So, uh, good job, Gygax.