Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Dual wielding

Blame pulp culture for that one, Kriss.

Dual-wielding melee weapons is impractical, requiring a high level of skill to be effective and even then providing no practical advantage over 2H or 1H+shield, which is why it historically with few exceptions wasn't used in combat, but occurred mostly in martial arts and other settings where it worked as a demonstration of skill... but it is sufficiently exotic (due to not being used in practice for fighting) that it made its way into popular literature, and as it can be made to look awesome with good stage choreography, it was a natural fit for movies and television.

AD&D took that and ran with it, going to extremes such as people dual wielding long weapons (with taken to its logical conclusion resulted in the mounted drow cavalier dual-wielding lances back in the day, but I digress), with the interesting result that these days many fantasy gamers expect characters to be able to dual wield weapons and be efficient thereat, or even to be more dangerous than those who use a shield to defend themselves, which is patently ridiculous.

BUT... and there's a big but, and it is this: What is wrong with that?

It is a fantasy game, not a reality simulator. Genre conventions may be silly, but fantasy games are mainly about entertaining players, not educating them.

Having dual-wielding effective on the level of sword&board or 2H in a game is neither more nor less silly or justified than the complete silliness of having unarmed combat be a reasonable choice when fighting armed opposition.

This unarmed silliness often being combined with another awesome fantasy convention, namely that highly skilled people fighting without armour can be effective in small or large scale melee, because they are so great at dodging. (An approach not used in real life, where highly skilled people have at all times preferred armour if they could get it, just like everybody else, because it was their lives on the line).

After all, these are games where you shoot fire and ice from your fingers, i doubt this is more often met historically than DW-ing.

That makes sense in the context, because magic exists in the universe, the swords and other weapons shown are fairly conventional.

What? That doesn't make much sense, sorry. You can't apply rules from 1 universe to magic and from another to weapons.
The fact that they look like weapons in another universe (real let's say) doesn't mean rules for them in their universe apply from another universe.
You think in our universe we have had swords/axes etc. that could make elemental damage - fire, water, tenebrium (?) ?
It's all fictional, including the weapons. Skeletons also look like real ones, but in DOS they walk and talk and so on.

yeah, exactly, and because dual wielding wasn't included in the game, we know that the weapons behave, generally, in the same way they do in our universe.
Not having dual wielding in Original Sin is the same as not having the option to equip shields on your feet.

No we don't know that. We don't know the real reasons behind the decision to not include DW. Unless there is an official confirmation that this is because they think DW is unrealistic, i would rather think it has much much more technical reasons than historical.
Also there is no connection between weapons doing similar job to what they do in real life and not having DW. Water water in game looks like water IRL, do we make magic with it?
Skeletons in the game look similar to IRL, do IRL skeletons talk and walk?
See, they of course base the game on our perception of our real world and shift it into a fictional setting, that does not mean that things that look like real life counterparts should be exactly the same as in real life.
On the contrary, many of them are not and for reason.
Unless developers on purpose say - we won't put DW cause we think it's not historically believable to use it in combat, but it is historically believable to have talking skeletons, fire magic and huge flaming weapons, i would rather think they have not put it because it complicates things technically to code, to balance to implement. Which is a perfectly understandable and logical reason.

Why do you spam the word "historically" as if it is any part of my argument. Dual Wielding is less effective, it's stupid, you gimp yourself when you do it. It has nothing to do with history, the only widespread historic use of dual wielding was rapier and parrying dagger versus, guess what, rapier and parrying dagger.
My argument for not adding it, is that, unless there is some IN-UNIVERSE explanation as to why it's functional, it would just be stupid to do it, less effective than a single weapon or weapon and shield.

You mention you don't base your assumptions on real life and history (and as a matter of fact DW was used in Japan and is a style developed by one of their greatest swordsmen in the mid ages), but then you assume that DW is less effective.

Why? On what do you base that in a fictional universe?

If in our real combat situations in the middle ages when wars were waged with swords mainly...

...it was less effective, what makes you think it should be the same in this DOS fictional world?

It could be just a different style that people would want to use for fun in this game. Why would it be gimping or less effective or whatever you want to call it.

It could be not more not less effective overall than other styles, just different way to play the game as a melee.

If you wanted to look from historical aspect; I'm an archaeologist, what we've seen from cylinder seals, steles and cuneiform tablets of Sumerians, Akkads(essipacially Akkad Military Campaing Scenes), Assriyans ,Hittites... , dual wielding's as old as their periods( Mostly small axes, short swords,daggers and curved blades all made of bronze) so looks like it was ok back then if you hear any news please tell us from this page, thank you.

That makes sense in the context, because magic exists in the universe, the swords and other weapons shown are fairly conventional.

All of these kids wanting dual wielding.


Look here, dual wielding both looks silly, is impractical even in a fantasy setting and does absolutely nothing to spice up combat apart from making you look like "le epic ninja xDDDD".
If there is something that deserves to be added is a monk type skill tree, which focuses on unarmed combat, at least that can be justified in fantasy, unlike gimping yourself by using two weapons.

Of course there wasn't a widespread use of dual wielding weapons and techniques amongst soldiers that's the point, beacuse it's required proper traning and equipment. Back then it was really hard to get resources(copper and tin ect) and best weapons forged for royal forces and special units. Standart infantrymen carried a spear and a shield to the battlefield it was cheap and more easy to use. We'r not talking about common styles of fighting and regular foot soldiers,rogues and asssains tactics are not the same with a soldier. You shouldn't be mad at me because of my intrest of assasin/rogue role, wich lived in the real world too in the old times of man... Thank you and sorry for my bad Eng. again

Maximus in Gladiator, and Gannicus and Spartacus didn't look like "le epic ninja xDDDD" - they looked freaking awesome and the fighting looked realistic enough for us dual wielding lovers to want to ROLE PLAY games with the fighting style WE want..

... got it, kid? /facepalm right back at you.