More than once in the past I've grabbed up a pair of weapons, dreaming of a time in the near future when I'd be swinging them both around like a whirlwind of death and bone swords until...
>es weapon
You can't hold this.
Is there a reason for this, I can't see how it would make sense that you wouldn't be able to hold a weapon in your off-hand. I've played all combat pc's to a state of maximum dual wield and even at the point of near ambidexterity, still, with those certain weapons you can't hold them.
Just curious if there is a real life reason for something like this or just what I figure is a 'balancing' of code.
Quote from: Majikal on May 17, 2010, 09:33:30 AM
More than once in the past I've grabbed up a pair of weapons, dreaming of a time in the near future when I'd be swinging them both around like a whirlwind of death and bone swords until...
>es weapon
You can't hold this.
Is there a reason for this, I can't see how it would make sense that you wouldn't be able to hold a weapon in your off-hand. I've played all combat pc's to a state of maximum dual wield and even at the point of near ambidexterity, still, with those certain weapons you can't hold them.
Just curious if there is a real life reason for something like this or just what I figure is a 'balancing' of code.
Y'know, I was gonna make a post on this very topic, but didn't feel like trying to type up a coherent question.
Thank you Majikal.
Thank you and the Pillsbury Doughboy.
Seems to me it's for large weapons that couldn't be held in the off hand, though this may well be inconsistent with other 'large' weapons. All the weapons I've seen this apply to are in some form hefty and bulky weapons. The problem is there are some weapons which this should really apply to but doesn't. Two bastard swords should really make anyone who isn't a strong mul or a half-giant fight like an idiot. Unless we dropped the tendancy to favour realism, in which case I suggest a new skill for warriors who dual wield bastard swords called "whirlwind attack!" which damages everyone in the same room as them.
It can't really be for code balances, because all of the "most badass" weapons in any category (that I've seen...chopping weapons may be an exception, and obviously pikes/polearms/tridents don't count) can be dual wielded.
Although I suppose that could just be lack of appropriate builder oversight.
I'm pretty sure that...that one...can't be dual wielded. That...one. Okay, this is useless.
The main descriptions for these weapons are appropriate, though they may not be the "most badass" available. There's only a few possibilities:
1) It's a bug
2) It's intentional
3) It's intentional but inconsistent due to oversight
I'm more inclined to believe it's 3. I think maybe it was forgotten about when creating the "most badass" weapons you're thinking of, unless it's no. 2 and it's intentional that harder to come by weapons are more useful in this way.
Quote from: Spoon on May 17, 2010, 11:28:32 AM
Seems to me it's for large weapons that couldn't be held in the off hand, though this may well be inconsistent with other 'large' weapons. All the weapons I've seen this apply to are in some form hefty and bulky weapons. The problem is there are some weapons which this should really apply to but doesn't. Two bastard swords should really make anyone who isn't a strong mul or a half-giant fight like an idiot. Unless we dropped the tendancy to favour realism, in which case I suggest a new skill for warriors who dual wield bastard swords called "whirlwind attack!" which damages everyone in the same room as them.
Realistically speaking a bastard sword is only slightly heavier than the typical long-sword, and that was simply to compensate for heavier armor being invented during medieval era. There is little real difference between the long-sword and the bastard sword. In fact, the bastard sword is still in the category of 'long-sword'.
I think being able to 'hold' extra heavy things in your off hand should be a function of strength, period.
But I agree that it's probably intentional, and inconsistent due to oversight.
The weapons in question I'm referring too aren't two-handed swords, greatswords, claymores or giant mauls etc.
I'm not sure I can drop sdesc/mdesc on these such items on the gdb, but the ones from memory are 2 different broadswords, a longsword, 2 different scimitars, an obviously one handed mace.
yea i'd send in a question via the submit tool before giving up on your dreams. the inability to ES a weapon should also be added to assess
I want to hold everything, damnit.
I want to hold my hat,
I want to hold your cat,
I want to hold my cloak,
I want to hold my book,
I want to hold er'thing.
I want to hold my bag full of stuff that I don't want dirty thieves to steal. K thanks. And open up a spot in my inv. That'd be awesome to hold a bag.
You can hold bags.
WHAT? When? I've tried. It never worked.
Did it say It is too heavy? Or just go HUH?
It might've said.. It was too heavy.. Or said 'You cant hold that'. Cant remember. Never tried again. Sec I try noaw... Says too heavy. Gosh ima newb. Sorry sir.
No problem, and far as I know you have been able to hold bags for as long as there have been bags.
it's too heavy to hold but not too heavy to hold in inventory. sigh.
yes you can explain it away as "you're holding it over your shoulder in your inventory or somewhere else inconvenient." but whatever. sigh.
If I had to guess, it's to represent the asymmetry of strength. Most of us are stronger with one arm and one leg than we are with their opposites. That's why the hands are called Primary and Secondary, not Left and Right.
We chose which hand is primary, but fundamentally there is an imbalance of strength in these arms. Think of yourself - which arm would you throw a ball with? Chances are, that arm is stronger than your other arm. Hence, for a heavy weapon that challenges both arms, you would be better off using it in your primary hand, because you will wield it better.
Also, strength has an influence on which weapons you can ES, with a stronger person being able to ES heavier weapons than a weaker one.
Perhaps we could request that if dual wield gets to within 90% of max, we be able to wield all objects that can be wielded in either hand, except weapons that are ETWO only.
If your dual wield is 90% maxed, you could dual-wield wooden spoons and wtfpwn everything in the game. I.e. that's a fix guaranteed only to fix the problem in the range where the problem is no longer a problem, unless you're really -that- upset about aesthetics.