View Full Version : Why dual wield?
Tue, 10th Oct '00, 6:59am
I'm not trying to sound like a powergamer but why would anyone want to dual wield anything?
You still get penalised at the max proficiency for dual wielding and no bonuses at all. All the other fighting styles give so much more bonuses than dual wield. Grandmastery with a weapon plus 2 slots in 2handed weapon or single weapon makes a devastating fighter. I guess dual wield is for the sub-fighters like rangers and paladins. But damn, dual wielding looks cool though.
Tue, 10th Oct '00, 9:11am
Umm, probably because you get to attack twice as much as using one weapon? Heh, sorry for being condescending :)
Tue, 10th Oct '00, 11:29pm
You want to dual wield because of the buff properties of some weapons.
Some weapons are worth carrying just because of things like 'free movement', 'immunity to charm', 'strength boost to 25', etc.
Thu, 12th Oct '00, 2:50am
From the start of this game I could never forget Drizzt in BG1. When I finally killed him and got his weapons in BG1 I thought "wouldn't it be great to be able to use both of these weapons?". In BG2 you can finally dual wield, like Drizzt.
Yep you can get weapons (as stated above) that grant immunity to things and compliment it with another weapon that gives 'Fire' damage or the like. My main character is a Fighter, I SPECIFICALLY imported him from BG1 BECAUSE there was no way I was going to waste the extra ability points given by the TOMES in BG1 by creating a new BG2 character. I would've lost some 19 and 20 attributes. NO WAY!
I also applied the corrective 'patch' for weapon expertise for BG2. I have a GM in Scimatars and have the +2 Scimitar that gives an extra attack. I have 6 ATTACKS with two Scimitars (the other Scimitar is a +3). The speed factor (due to GM Expertise) for both of these weapons are 1 & 0.
This is why I dual Class. Drizzt would wail out 4-5 attacks for every 1 of mine in BG1. I learned and followed in step realizing how powerful the DUAL WEAPON attack/ability really is.
I'll never go another route after I finish this game, I'll have a dual wielding character again!
[This message has been edited by Draco Vlasavius (edited October 12, 2000).]
Thu, 12th Oct '00, 5:56am
You killed Drizzt!
Thu, 12th Oct '00, 11:27am
Actually, IMO dual wielding for a high level warrior is about the most overrated ability in AD&D.
For a level 1 fighter with no weapon specialization or a rogue class character it effectively doubles # of attacks. For a high level warrior it's nice, but not THAT nice...
Because it adds *one* extra attack. Period. That's it. It will never be more with the off-hand. (and you need at least 2 full profiency slots in two-weapon style to stop the penalty from hurting)
A fighter specialist has 3/2 with his main weapon until level 7, then 2 in 1, and 5/2 once he's level 13.
2.5 or 3.5 attacks per round is of course still a difference, but it's not that huge one as to completely nullify all the potential benefits from using s shield (like, say, 5 AC points ;) )
Frankly, compared to a shield that might add 4-6 AC PLUS resistances to fire/acid/magic, the ability to reflect gaze attacks or other *extremely* nice benefits that you can find in BG2, one extra attack does not sound *that* incredible anymore. It has it's pros AND cons. Unless the offhand weapons has some very nice fringe benefits, like immunities, extra attacks, extra spells or the like, the race with a good shield is at least tied.
Now, for a rogue there's much less doubt. Of course my swashbuckler double wields... ;)
Fri, 13th Oct '00, 6:38pm
Paladins can duel wield? thats ridiculous!
Drizzt should be max level for ranger, he's much more powerful in the books than he is in the game.
Duel weild looks neat.
Sat, 14th Oct '00, 6:11am
Drizzt must be a a fighter level 99 who somehow dualled into a ranger and reached level 99 in that class also by the time we read of him in the Icewind Dale trilogy.
Sat, 14th Oct '00, 10:29pm
Yep as noted, it can be up to your style of play. My Fighter has plenty of protective/saving throw magical items equipped. Therefore the dual wielding is the ultimate for him.
His # of attacks, his Speed Factor reduction from SF3 to SF0 for Grand Mastery, a -2 penalty for the 'off hand weapon' and immunities by the weapons wielded make a killing machine! That meager -2 penalty is almost ignorable if you have a high enough level Fighter class character who already needs a 'negative' roll THAC0.
Shield in your left hand? No true fighter would do that, Drizzt, Sarevok or the more powerful fighters in BG2 will ever be found using shields. It's either 2 weapons or a 2-Hander'. Probably on the theory 'nothing beats an offense'. If a -10A.C. becomes a -15A.C with a shield no big difference. I'd rather have all the *extras* mentioned above knowing that I will hit that -AC.
My Fighter has Boots of Speed, and once my Spellcasters in round 1 take out an enemy spellcasters defenses with Breach & Pierce then that spellcaster deals with my Fighter's 5-6 attacks at a Speed factor of 0. It works for me. Not all of course RPG this way. Enjoy.
[This message has been edited by Draco Vlasavius (edited October 14, 2000).]
Sun, 15th Oct '00, 4:27am
But would it be appropriate for a Kensai-type fighter who can't wear armor to dual wield? Wouldn't it be better to have a single weapon style specialisation for the AC bonuses?