Does 2 weapon wielding pay off?

Remove all ads!

In 2-nd Ed I found it usable but here is a power attack feat and so on.....

[ November 12, 2002, 19:58: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

IMO it is pretty useless. The only time when you should use it is when you can't pick anything else: for ex your front line monk can't use a shield, so give him two weapons - or your thief has crappy STR, so he cannot use a two-handed weapon for decent damage, so give him a level of Ranger, Weapon Finesse, and use two slamm blades.

Otherwise, two-handed weapons are WAY more powerful, and Sword+Shield are better for defense.

 

My point exactly...
Damn i liked to see a character wielding 2 weapons

 

Compared to what?
To a 2-handed weapon?

Here's a rough calculation with 2 Long Swords (LS=1d8) and a Great Sword (GS=2d6):

Number of effective attacks per round (meaning you don't have more than this, or your lesser attacks are weak and can be neglected):
(Assume your strength bonus is +6)

1 attack:
---------
2 x LS : (1d8 + 6) + (1d8 + 3) = 2-16 + 9 = 9 + 9 = 18 probable average damage
1 x GS : 2d6 + 9 = 2-12 + 9 = 7 + 9 = 16 probable average damage
So 2 weapons is better.

2 attacks:
----------
Assume the 2nd attack will succeed 30% less times than the first attack (because its attack bonus is 5 points lower). Also second and further attacks are with main hand only.

2 x LS:
- 1st Attack: 18 damage (calculated above)
- 2nd Attack: 0.7 x (1d8 + 6) = 0.7 x 10.5 = 7.35 damage
Total: 18 + 7.35 = 25.35 damage

1 x GS:
- 1st Attack: 16 damage (calculated above)
- 2nd Attack: 0.7 x 16 = 11.2 damage
Total: 16 + 11.2 = 27.2 damage

So now the picture has changed already. A great sword is better then 2 Long Swords (with +6 strength bonus).

Last one:
3 Attacks:
----------
Assume the 3rd attack will succeed 30% less times than the 2nd attack.

2 x LS:
- 1st Attack: 18 damage (calculated above)
- 2nd Attack: 7.35 damage (calculated above)
- 3rd Attack: 0.7 x 7.35 = 5.15 damage
Total: 18 + 7.35 + 5.15 = 30.5 damage

1 x GS:
- 1st Attack: 16 damage (calculated above)
- 2nd Attack: 11.2 damage (calculated above)
- 3rd Attack: 0.7 x 11.2 = 7.84 damage
Total: 16 + 11.2 + 7.84 = 35.04 damage

You see that, as your number of attacks increases, using a 2-handed weapon will most probably deal more damage than using 2 weapons, especially if you have a high strength bonus. (The higher your bonus from strength, the more this conclusion is true).
Add to this an aspect which I haven't included in my calculation, which is that your attack bonuses get -2 penalty with 2 weapons. If you factor this in, you will get an even bigger difference in favour of 2-handed weapons.

Using 2 weapons makes sense in the following cases (those I can think of right now):
- Your character has low or normal strength (no high strength bonus) and his class doesn't get many effective attacks per round
- Your character has high Dex and uses Weapon Finesse. Can't use 2-handed weapons.
- You have 2 weapons that have very specific effects beside the damage (e.g. acid and stun or dispel, silence, disruption etc..), and you know your enemy is sensitive to them.

It is actually sad that the results so obviously favour the 2-handed weapons; it would have been nice if you got more than just one attack with the off hand. For example 1/2 the right hand's, or 1 less than the right hand. Or giving an AC bonus for using 2 weapons because you can stop more attacks with 2 weapons. Or hey, being able to fight 2 enemies, one with each weapon.

[ November 13, 2002, 00:44: Message edited by: Quint ]

 

Actually there is a feat in 3E called
"Improved Two Weapon Fighting" feat that gives you extra attack with the off hand (at -5) but in Icewind Dale 2 there isn't

[ November 13, 2002, 00:57: Message edited by: AlexGK ]

 

Anyone seen a movie with a fight between a dual-wielder and a great sword wielder? That would be nice to watch. Who would win do you imagine?

 

Can't 2 bastard swords be double wield?Cose they have 1d10 damage roll...
Not so dificult to make such a battle.Must only make 2 characters cheat for experience make the one dual wield the other great sword and give them to attack each other.But it also depends on AC...High one is better for great sword fighter

 

Thanks for bringing up the bastard sword! Why didn't I think of that?
This makes me discover that there is a small mistake in my calculation, so I did it again but the results and conclusion is still the same.

My mistake:
If you wield 2 long swords you get a penalty of -4 for both hands, so that is not a good example to take, as the -4 cannot be neglected like I did.
I should have taken the example with a bastard sword (BS=1d10) and a short sword (SS=1d6) for the dual wielder.

So here's the new calculation, and this time I'm counting that the -2 penalty for the dual wielder gives him a 10% chance of failure (so taking only 90% of his possible damage):

1 attack:
---------
BS+SS : 0.9x(1d10 + 6) + 0.9x(1d6 + 3) = 18 probable damage (doesn't change)
GS : 16 probable damage

2 attacks:
----------
BS+SS:
2nd Attack: 0.9 x 0.7 x (1d10 + 6) = 7.25 dmg
Total: 18 + 7.25 = 25.25 dmg
GS:
Total: 16 + 11.2 = 27.2 dmg

3 Attacks:
----------
BS+SS:
3rd Attack: 0.7 x 7.25 = 5.08 dmg
Total: 18 + 7.25 + 5.08 = 30.33 dmg
GS:
Total: 16 + 11.2 + 7.84 = 35.04 dmg

Results:
--------
Same conclusion. A Great Sword deals more damage than dual wielding a Bastard Sword + Short Sword.

While I'm at it, here are there results if there is NO strength bonus:

1 attack:
BS+SS: 0.9x(1d10 + 1d6) = 8.1
GS: 2d6 = 7
Difference= 7 - 8.1 = -1.1

2 attacks:
BS+SS: 8.1 + (0.9 x 0.7 x 1d10) = 11.57
GS: 7 + (0.7 x 2d6) = 11.9
Difference= 11.9 - 11.57 = 0.33

3 attacks:
BS+SS: 11.57 + (0.9 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 1d10) = 14
GS: 11.9 + (0.7 x 0.7 x 2d6) = 15.33
Difference= 15.33 - 14 = 1.33

4 attacks:
BS+SS: 14 + (0.9 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 1d10) = 15.7
GS: 15.33 + (0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 2d6) = 17.73
Difference = 17.73 - 15.7 = 2.03

The advantage of a two-handed sword over BS+SS is still obvious, and grows with number of attacks, even without any strength bonus.

 

Yea, but imagine you have both your weapons +5?And if they give something else than +5 to hit and to damage such as resistance or poison damage etc.

 

I've found a lot more really excellent one-handed weapons than two-handed weapons in this game, though, so you'd really have to look hard for a two-handed weapon that could compete with the nice one-handed ones, and then hope that it matched your proficiencies. For example, say you have weapon focus in Axes- I can think of several great one-handed axes to double-wield with, but not very many two-handed axes that are equally enchanted or do equal extra damage. But maybe that's just the way my random weapon-finding turned out and not a general feature of the game. The Holy Avenger is one-handed in this game, a longsword instead of a greatsword.

 

I was going to say there are more one-handed weapons in the game, given that many weapons don't have 2-handed equivalents (like maces and flails), so it would be natural to find more good versions of them. But then there were quite a few spears, halbreds, staffs (although those sucked), so I don't know.
But I did find 3 or 4 excellent 2-handed axes (some 1d12 base damage, and they do x3 damage on critical hits). Great weapons. If you want I'll give you the item codes for a couple great axes.
As for the holy avenger, I use a patch that turns it into a 2-handed weapon that dispels magic on every hit, like it should.

@AlexGK
So you're asking for another calculation for +5 weapons ? OK.
Using +5 weapons throughout will only affect the first attack, because the dual wielder will get it twice. The way I'm calculating the penalties for dual wielding, he'll get (0.9 x 5 = 4.5) extra dmg on his first attack (from his off hand, which the 2-handed sword doesn't get). All other attacks won't change compared to the 2-handed weapon because the other guy is getting +5 too.

This would change the conclusion for the case of little to no strength bonus in favour of dual wielding.

As the strength bonus increases, the advantage will again be had by the 2-handed wielder.
With a strength bonus of +6, the 2-handed weapon will start getting an advantage at 4 attacks per round. At 3 attacks, they're equivalent. So if the bonus is more than +6 the 2-hander will win at 3 attacks per round or even earlier with a super high strength bonus.

However, you get the +4 and +5 weapons only late in the game when your fighters already have 3, 4 or even 5 attacks, and a higher strength probably too. This means that by the time they can get 2 +4/+5 weapons, they're better off using a 2-handed weapon.

[ November 14, 2002, 04:47: Message edited by: Quint ]

 

Yup
That's the way it is, I like it aha, aha....
If there was this feat however with the extra attack for the off hand...
But there isn't..... hey black isle PACH it!!!!!!

Thanks Quint you are the man!!!

[ November 14, 2002, 12:25: Message edited by: AlexGK ]

 

I had a Drow Fighter/Ranger who dual-wields a Longsword and Bastard Sword...he works quite well actually (he was useless before I added some levels of Rangers in him)

 

You know, it is all really a matter of preference. When I first started playing IWD2 I felt that 2 hand wielding was not worth the feats or the loss of shield bonuses. I also felt that 2 handed weapons were kind of overrated. Now however, I have come around. In my current party, my dwarf fighter packs the Massive Halberd of Hate!!! With 4 attacks per round, he lays low most anything in one round... However, he also does quite a bit of fighting with his hammer and axe combo. And he is quite good with these weapons as well.

As to weapons, well you can get some kicking one or two handed weapons by chapter 2 (+4 spear, +3 club, +5 short sword all from our friends at battlesquares). However, while there are lots more 1 handed weapons the most devastating weapons in the game (IMHO) are 2 handed weapons. The Halberd of Hate +4 and the Great Swords of the Soulless +5 are about as wicked as you can get as far as power and damage go. However, both are not available until the end of the game (unless you use the cheat codes)...

One set of weapons that I felt were under represented in this game were the bastard swords. Most of the ones I found were cursed, and the others were all like +1 or +2. The only really good one I've found is the +3 Cold Fire BS, and that does not pop up til the end of the game...

Alright, enough... both dual wielding and using 2handed weapons is cool. Take your pick and lay waste to some monsters!!!

 

That's the word man!!!
@Deathmage:how a ranger levels can help your fighter?Because of the spells?

 

I have a duel-wielding rogue who has 1 level of ranger to get the duel-wielding feats. I am now thinking that this is not a very good idea seeing I have a bad second weapon and I can't wear heavy armour otherwise I will lose the feats. Do you think I should just stop duel wielding wear some better armour and use a shield or keep duel wielding (by the way I am using to short sword +5 of brillience from the battle simulator)?

Thanks
{LDU}stealth

 

You should use a bow or a crossbow with your rogue for most of the time and only whip out your swords when enemies get too close and then slice them up. That is what I do with my fighter2/ranger1/rogueX, he is an excellent bodyguard for my mage and cleric.

 

I'm pretty happy with my bowfighting halfling rogue x-fighter-6 atm. My attack rolls are awesome and using the rapid-shot feat I have an enjoyably high rate of fire (basically the reason why I prefer bows tp crossbows for rogues - that feat doesn't work with crossbows). Add weapon specialization and you have a ranged wighter who is nearly as effective as a meleer.

My rogue now has a bow with +6 damage, causeing an average 15-21 (or so) damage per hit @ 4 attacks per round. Pretty impressive.

Back to topic:
As for dualwielding, it's generally a question of style. I like to use it with my rogues and it's very handy when you want to combine some of the neat weapons you found - I have found a dagger with +3 deflection bonus and use it to support my +4 shortsword - the dagger is almost as good as a buckler, yet it causes damage.

Two-handed weapons in the hands of a really high strength character are very powerful - namely the terrific str 20+++ half-orc fighter- 4 or6/ barbarian-x with weapon specialisation and a greatsword. However, using two weapons he wouldn't be less formidable.

Though I'm a powergamer I don't choose weapon styles for offensive punch but for "style". I like dualwielding for rogues and rangers. For rogues and bards a buckler and a shortsword are nice too. I like two-handed weapon fighting for fighters and barbarians and I like to use shields for pallies, clerics, fighters and barbarians equally. And I use daggers, staffs and moonblades for the arcane casters ... It's all about taste and what you like for your roleplaying or just the flair of your character.

And since you're absolutely free to create the chars you want ... I created a gold-dwarf fighter-ranger-bard dualwielding axes ... ... or I had a half-orc barbarian-rogue sneak-attacking with a spear (specialisation, Kyosti's spear, greater rage = str-30, crit .... ouch ) ... 3e rules - unlimited versatility

[ November 15, 2002, 13:09: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ahum... Ragusa there seems to be a bug in the game - i tried rapid shot with crossbow and it works the same as bow Has someone else tried this???I have the last patch, if that's a question.
My first rogue3\figher4\barbX has proven to be the coolest character I've ever made.Only wondering if I should give him 2 more rouge levels for more backstab.Only hide\move sliensly and my wizardX\thief30 disarming\search dual wielding with weapon finesee and rapid shot.Pretty coll.Here am I also wondering if 4 figher levels are needed.Actually I uesd him as a tank\scout to support the other thief (mirror image and so on).
PS:I find it really stupid to backstab with polearm and great sword.I dont think that's really possible.Backstab must be disabled with weapons greather then longsword

[ November 15, 2002, 14:17: Message edited by: AlexGK ]

 

The point is that it isn`t a backstab anymore but a sneak attack

The point is that you no longer do a "cutthroat attack" as in BG-2 but just an aimed attack on an exposed opponent - that works very well with a spear. No need for weapon restriction.

[ November 15, 2002, 14:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]