Talk:Monster Girl Quest: NG+ (Ecstasy)/@comment-26047404-20150127061507/@comment-26047404-20150130211957

"""QUOTE: First off one handing a two handed weapon causes massive penelties to your attack roll, even by taking the feat monkey grip you still take massive penelties. It is better to use one handed weapons or light weapons to get the damage you need."""

The penalties don't go away even if the weapon is light. And monkey grip doesn't factor in that you do less damage, and you attack half as fast. And even then.. Monkey grip doesn't make any sense. You can't half the weight of your weapon by gripping it in a special way. I can't make a special grip with my hand to make 30 pounds into 15 pounds.

The problem is that if D&D modeled dual wielding correctly, then nobody use it because it would just be disadvantageous. You don't do more damage dual-wielding; you do less damage. The primary advantage to dual wielding in D&D is actually one of dual-wielding's primary disadvantages.

"""QUOTE: Second, even if using one handed weapons and light weapons you still need two weapon fighting feats to make them worth while to reduce the penelties. Even then after taking two weapon fighting you still incur a -4 to your attack for one handed weapons and a -2 to your attack for light weapons. """

The problem is that these disadvantages don't go away through training. I've explained why multiple times, so I'd be repeating myself. You can train to be able to use two weapons at a time more proficiently, but no matter how proficient you are, you'd still be better with a single weapon because the disadvantages to dual wielding are INHERENT to dual wielding. You can't change laws of physics through training. You could train to dual wield to put on a performance for entertainment or something, but it won't give the same person an advantage over two-handing a single weapon.

"""QUOTE: Furthermore your off hand deals only half as much of your strength bonus while your main hand does full damage. It would not make sense if your main hand delt half damage with a weapon just because you have another weapon in your off hand, otherwise it should do the same with the shield. Again though there is a deat to offset this and do full strength damage with both weapons. Acourse with two handed a weapon you do 1.5 your strength bonus as well."""

Your ability to create damage with a weapon is based on your muscle. You have to move it to create damage potential. The sword is just a sharp cutting tool. If a sword remains motionless, it's just sitting there. And the damage you do with a weapon, increases damatically as its force and speed increase. If I swing one sword really slow, then it would just bounce off something. If I swing one sword really fast, it could cut through the same thing and then let me backswing for a second attack. Damage is not linear to its movement speed; the relationship is closer to exponential growth. If I divided the force used to move one sword between four swords, it would just scratch somebody, maybe give them a nasty cut. If you take the same force and use it with one sword, then someone is going to get cut in half.

But ok, let's try a more accurate D&D like model here.

If you wanted to model the damage, two-handing a weapon does more damage and makes more attacks. You are using only the total of the weight of one weapon, so you actually attack faster and tire out less quickly, so again it means you can attack more. Your attack speed is based on WEIGHT, not the number of swords you are holding. You also apply your full strength to each attack.

There are some advantages to one-handing a weapon when it's light and your opponent is unarmored, because you can turn your body profile to the side making you a smaller target and you can reach out your arm to extend your reach. This is like the rapier style, where it's more about not getting hit than the damage you make, because both guys are dueling unarmored. But if you're dual-wielding with extremely light weapons then you can't take advantage of this, because you have to have to rotate your body to be perpendicular to the opponent's thrusting weapon every time you swing to attack with your offhand weapon.

So let's say you want to use a one-handed weapon in a rapier style. Well, you increase your range by extending your arm and make your body profile smaller. You get a lower attack rate and you do less damage than two-handing a single weapon, but your defense increases. In reality, this would not be a great strategy against an armored opponent, but I'll try to keep this simple. In this case, you can apply half of your strength to one attack.

Alright, now we get to dual wielding. First, your attacks are going to be slower and it's going to use more enduance because two weapons are double the weight. You have to move that. It's like you doubled the weight of your weapon for no advantage. You don't get two attacks per round. You get one attack with either weapon. Someone backswings just as fast as they can swing a second weapon. The attack rate is going to be higher while two-handing a weapon because you are halving the total weight while doubling the effective strength you can use on one weapon by using both arms on one weapon. So, with dual wielding you should get LESS than the same number of attacks as one-handing a weapon, because you have to lift both those weapons. That's going to tire you out more quickly, and also when you move your body you have to move the other weapon. When you swing with one of your dual wielded weapons, you still have to move your other weapon even if it isn't being used for an attack, because it isn't like the weight of the weapon just disappears because you aren't using it. If I chained one arm to a ball and chain, and then tried to swing a sword with the other arm, then I can't swing as fast or hard because I have to lift the ball and chain when I rotate.

Dual wielding should also get a defense penalty, and a risk of self-injury. When your swords bounce wild off someone's armor, you can't control them, especially when you're tired. Training can't get rid of that, You could say that training reduces your risk of self-injury, but you still risk self-injury.

So, dual wielding makes your ability to hit lower, your attack rate lower, your damage lower, your defense lower, and gives you a risk of self-injury. I've probably forgotten some disadvantages, beecause honestly there are so many. Here's the problem with dual wielding; if it were modelled accurately, nobody would use it except as a quirky character trait.

The whole D&D tradeoff is supposed to be that you do more damage. It doesn't do more damage; it does LESS damage. I keep on repeating this, but swords don't move themselves. If I held two swords in each hand, I wouldn't get four attacks and do four times as much damage.

You need a cutting tool to multiply the damage potential from the strength in your muscles. Having a second cutting tool does not improve this. You either have a cutting tool or you don't. In fact, you benefit by swinging one cutting tool really fast and hard, over swinging two cutting tools, one at a time, much slower and with less force.

You get your cutting tool. You're armed now. Now, you need to build up your muscle to do more damage and attack faster. It's that simple. Now if you have a heavier or longer cutting tool, then you can do more damage but your attacks are slower, but dual wielding gets rid of that advantage, because dual wielding doubles the weight without giving you the use of a heavier or longer weapon. Dual wielding with two light weapons vs. two-handing a single large weapon, means you are making the same number of attacks with two inferior weapons vs. one superior weapon. You would do more damage and and make atleast the same number of attacks if you had one weapon that was twice the weight in two hands, rather than holding two weapons that are half the weight of the larger weapon in each hand. There are so many reasons on so many levels why dual wielding does not make any sense.

""'Quote: In the end D&D makes it perfectly sensable of the idea of being a two weapon warrior cause to actually make use out of it, you need to use alot of feats. This shows actual focus and training on this style of fighting rather then just picking up two weapons and suddenly being a badass."""

You can't get rid of these disadvantages with training. You'd still be stronger with a single weapon. If you work out and make your muscle greater, then you'd still be twice as fast with a single weapon. You'll always risk self-injury with two weapons; training would just mitigate it to some degree... And the more tired you become, the more this risk becomes unavoidable. Your defense would always be lower. And your damage would always be lower.

Dual-wielding just brings penalties to the table, and with training you could lower some of those penalties, but they never go away because there are inherent disadvantages to holding two of the same weapon and fighting with them like they're two primary weapons. That's why you would never do it for a serious fight.

"""Quote: TBH duel weapons light weapons IRL makes total sense, but some of Angel Halo's girth just does seem like complete idiocy. Even if Luka had the strength to pull it off, and he does lets face it, the weapon itself seems to be too big. It would be like a dwarf trying to wield two oversized axes, they would just end up getting in the way of each other."""

Dual light weapons do not make sense. They lower your attack speed, and you can really only attack with one at a time anyway. You still carry the double the weight. You may not feel it at first, but it's there. And you still risk cutting yourself. And you can't attack with both weapons at the same time, because you're going to need rotation to make an attack. If you want to attack with both weapons at the same time, your damage should decrease even more because you can't put body into it;  you can't rotate your whole body from both directions at the same. Attacking with two dual wielded weapons at the same time would actually be a really weak attack compared to the martial artist who has one sword and rotates his whole body into the swing. And since the speed of his sword increases his attack speed in addition to damage, he'd attack more often too.

Compared to dual wielding, you'd even better off just using a light weapon in one hand, because you could turn your body to the side (decreasing your hit profile thereby increasing your defense) and extend out your shoulder so you have greater reach (increasing defense and ability to hit). If you wanted to use two daggers this way, you wouldn't be dual-wielding, because you'd only be attacking with one weapon at a time, while you use the other weapon as a parrying dagger. You'd lose your advantage to defense if you turned your torso to attack with your offhand weapon (making your torso perpendicular to the opponent's weapon, making your hit profile larger.)

And there's more! Let's say you're using a rapier in one hand. Well, the idea is that rapier is so light that you can use your wrist and your arm to make quick threats and attacks. You actually LOWER your attack speed if you decide to swing with your other arm with another weapon, because now you have to move your torso and your other arm, step forward, and you have to move your primary arm with rapier back. You can make an attack much faster with your wrist, than you can with your whole body. Oh, and you just got stabbed because when you swung with your offhand you opened up your whole wide front torso to attack while bringing your rapier back which was your threat and deflection to protect you from getting stabbed. With a light weapon, you're better off using it in one hand and using your wrist and your arm and extended reach to make quick attacks.

But really, there is one point that should be very convincing to someone who is examining D&D rules. The whole idea of the advantage of dual wielding in D&D is that you do more damage by making more attacks. Ignoring all the other penalties, that's not true. Dual wielding actually makes less attacks than two-handing a single weapon.

1. To use a weapon and put strength into it, you need rotation. You can't rotate in opposite directions. So, to use two weapons like that effectively, you're stuck to using them like you'd use a single weapon with a backswing. So, there is no extra attack. You can just make one attack at a time effectively.

2. You have to use your muscles to move a weapon. Weight just slows you down. You double the weight in your hands, then you decrease your attack speed and your damage. When you rotate, you have to move the weight in your other hand even though you aren't using it to make an attack at the moment. You have to pull it along for the ride. That's why dual wielding would actually even do less damage than using a single light weapon. You use your whole body and weight profile to make a swing. If I just held something heavy in my offhand, it would reduce my damage and attack speed. Also, you can only use half of your effective arm strength with each attack with either weapon at one time. So you do more damage and make more attacks two-handing a single weapon than you would dual wielding. So your damage per second is an order of magnitude greater by two-handing a weapon vs. dual wielding, because you make more attacks and do more damage with each attack.

Dual wielding does less damage and makes less attacks than two-handing a single weapon. If you want the most attacks and damage, you would two-hand a single weapon.

It's actually worse than this, because you have all the other disadvantages I talked about.

This isn't something that you can train away. It's physics. If you build a plane out of aluminum, it goes faster than the same design made out of steel. You could improve your piloting skills, but you'd still be better off with the aluminum plane even with improved skills.

Dual wielding should be at best something like a quirky character trait. You have a character who wants to impress people and make them think he's a badass, so he dual-wields to try and impress people.. And he probably does impress people who don't sword fight because it looks intimidating, but warriors would see through that as just trying to show off and screwing himself over by doing so, and so they're going to see the guy as a show off who needs to impress people instead of as a serious warrior. Dual wielding is not practical or effective.