Talk:Monster Girl Quest: NG+ (Ecstasy)/@comment-26047404-20150127061507/@comment-5994448-20150131093548

First of all, you are being unnecessarily verbose. It does not make you sound more intellegent, it makes your points convoluted. Second, I never disagreed with you that it is impratical in real life, atleast concerning weapons like a straight sword, I am telling you that unlike using one weapon, whether it is duel wielding or not, is something one can do without feats. Ya see since D&D is a fictional setting, they like to let people make characters that are very different. This isn't restricted to just mages but warriors as well. You know, progressing to by pass the limits of human abilties. Since fighting with two weapons is an impratical form of combat, feats are made to make it pratical, you know, by passing normal human limits. When you bitch about about something not being realistic in a fictional setting, all I can think is "well no shit, who would have thought" in the most sarcastic way possible. A

sshole response, but the fact that my first point went well over your head, and you really want to talk down on a setting where you can cast spells and fight dragons but wielding two weapons is just absurd, you sound absurd for making such a big deal out of it. I am not befaulting the creator for the choice of having luka only wield one, he doesn't like the idea of duel wielding and that is fine.

Going onto light weapons. You know people duel wield katars, the Rajput have done this. A katar is a light weapon. It takes some crazy training to become ambidexerous, but they have done it. As well as Butterfly knives, Wind and fire wheels, emeri piercers, you know weapons that require more speed and perscision to deal a death blow then physical strength, all of those have been designed to be duel wielded, and have been effectively duel wielded. I would say that you sound like an expert, but really to someone who has read as much on ancient warfare as myself, I can call out the ignorance when I see it.

There not a dozen paragraphs of blowing smoke, just three is all I need to shut down your arguement. Really only one cause saying "This is unrealistic" over an unrealistic setting again doesn't even deserve a rebuttel. Your move