Dual wielding. Is it really this good?

Remove all ads!

I was playing through ToB recently, my protagonist, a halfelven m F/T, wielding Blackrazor and the Answerer, and Valygar wielding Celestial Fury and Crom Faeyr. I had Sarevok with the upgraded Ravager, and Viconia with Runehammer(upgraded) and the firegiant strenght belt. I don't remember ToB being this easy. Valygar stunned one enemy after an other, Sarevok and his deathbringer assult smashed firegiants. My protagonist sliced a good piece of Balthazar. My spellcaster, Imoen, couldn't keep up.
Is dualwielding really this effective?

 

In TOB, dual-wielding is the best way to go.

Earlier on in the game, you might be better using a shield in the offhand because the extra couple of points to your AC really make a difference, but by the time you reach TOB most of the enemies seem to hit you no matter what AC you have, so discard the shields and give yourself a second weapon.

[ April 12, 2004, 23:09: Message edited by: david w ]

 

It provides 1 extra attack per round, and that extra attack provides a different set of damage or effects depending on the weapon you have in your off hand. That, pretty much, sums up dual wielding.

Plus, it just looks really cool.

Still, I find the benefit of the added ability potential granted from the second weapon (for example, wielding Crom Fayr in the off hand), plus the extra attack that never hurts, far outweighs having a shield in the other hand, or even packing a two-handed weapon. This doesn't apply for ALL characters, but it's the way I like to play.

 

And then there is the feeling of been ripped off with weilding two weapons, with no (good) affect to defense (like defend with one attack with other combo) and only getting one extra attack per round instead of double.

By the time you get a few GWW attacks then Two handed weapons would reign supreme in terms of pure damage, especially things like Ravager and Carsomyr. I normally go with sword and shield or 2 weapon style in SoA and when I'm set there 2h style or keep sword and shield.

Zurga: I have to agree with you though about your party, I've tried a similar one before except I used a Stalker instead of a F/T, I also had Keldorn, until then I had no idea a tank heavy party with poor magic and cleric skill could breeze through like that. Overall it was probably one of the easiest games I had.

 

It depends on what the off-hand weapon is. If it gives you an ability (like Crom is a big upgrade to strength, or the improved MoD that gives you negative plane protection, or Belm granting you an extra attack to your main hand) then it's definitely worth dual wielding. If, however, your offhand is just some +3 weapon with no extra abilities, it really isn't worth it. In that case you're much better off going sword and shield, or using a two-handed weapon.

 

Its pretty good...in that you get to use weapons which give you various special abilities. Mostly, you will observe that weapons which have great offensive abilities don't have much defensive potential and vice versa with certain exceptions which are mostly overpowered (*cough* Carsomyr *cough*)

Anyway, its worth it if you look at it as a way to get various bonus abilities otherwise not attainable, and in the bargain, getting a free extra attack.

 

Dual-wielding is the way to go, like previously mentioned, but also because (if you have) mages can summon creatures to take the biggest hit -leaving your fighters with only one job: dealing damage as quickly as possible.

 

I guess I'm the odd man out. I don't like dual wielding. I like shields. And I disagree that most enemies hit you all the time in TOB. They don't hit me all the time, and I use shields. And the lower your AC is without a shield, the more a shield protects you, until you get to the point that you're only being hit by a natural 20.

For example, let's say you have an AC of -8 and that your enemy has a THACO of 5. He'll hit you 35% of the time. Now add a +4 shield, and he'll only hit you 10% of the time. For every 7 times he used to hit you, now he'll only hit you 2 times. In this example, a 25% drop in his THACO translates into a 71% drop in the damage you take.

Besides this, some of the shields have awesome abilities. The Shield of Harmony is great, especially if you don't want your chaotic commands dispelled. And the incredibly inexpensive Reflection Shield is nearly unparalleled -- it's almost good as the cloak of cheese. It even turns flame arrows. Then you've got the Shield of Balduran that makes any beholder encounter a walk in the park. And there are shields that offer resistances, too.

Moreover, if your playing style is not tank-oriented, shields are no hindrance. For instance, if you like to backstab and run, your offhand isn't doing you much good.

Besides all that, I just don't like the dual-wielding rules.

 

But it coulden't hurt to put points in it anyway, and with items like the Boots of avoidance(-5), Fortress sheild (7), and the cloak of displacement (-4) I forgot the name of, whay would you need a bonus -2 to missle weapons, you already have a -16 bonus on top of your AC for everything else which can go down to -12 with a sheild so it would then be a ac of -28, you might as well just put them into single weapon style imo, since you have double the chance of getting a critical hit and -2 bonus to AC, or -3 with certain weapons, or if you have a certain mod installed called TS you can get -6 but thats just plain cheese.

Also does anyone else think it's lame that you get a -2 to AC for single weapon style but not for two weapon style?

 

all these guys have spoken nice points already.

but remember to think of effects you might need, the shield of balduran is nice against beholders and the shield of harmony gives nice protections.....sometimes you are better of with the bonuses of a shield, other times with the bonuses of a weapon

 

Everything important has already been said, I think.

It depends on your style. And the rest of the party. It's better to have all guys set on high defence or all set on high offence, not for example high-damage fighters and high-AC supporting tanks. When the main tanks fall, supporting tanks and the weaker gentry will fall anyway, so they had better contribute to the whooping of ass before it gets to the point when HP and AC starts to matter.

Single-Weapon style is a good thing because it doubles your critical range, while also providing you with +2 AC, which is like a shield +1. Plus, you don't have to unequip anything to switch to bow.

Two-Handed Weapon style gets you better critical range, too, but instead of AC boost it improves your weapon speed. You swing Carsomyr as though it were a butter knife. Delay 1 means that you hit before most spells are cast.

If you're a fighter, higher levels of weapon proficiency (more stars) improve your weapon speed, too, so the bonus may go to waste if you have ***** in your chosen 2H weapon.

Dual-wielding basically serves to kick more ass. And that's a good thing. You only need a very good armour and high dexterity, preferably also some magical buffs.

 

Who needs shields when I can just cast a couple of buffs like Ironskin and Fireshield to have it surpass the benefits a shield gives?