Dual wielding

[Strongpoint]

I know that it is in the list of things that won't be done, but I still want to talk about it

As I can see there are 3 big problems with dual wielding:
1) It's very hard to balance
2) It requires a lot of coding and serious reworking of combat mechanic
3) It's hard to insert good interface for dual wielding in crawl

But I think that all problems can be avoided with the dual wielding mechanic that I have in my mind:


Why not make offhand weapon behave exactly like unarmed auxiliary attack? It's not like offhand punch greatly unbalance the game...


Balance issues
#1 ) Two weapons will be strictly better than one weapon. \ No, if offhand weapon will create penalties similar to shields.
#2 ) Two weapons will allow to carry 2 artifacts and get a lot of resistances\stat bonuses for casters \ Brands and artifact properties may activate only in main hand, it sounds illogical, but throwing currently works like that

Also offhand weapon may be limited to short blades, or even daggers only. ( or base it on the sizes of weapon and character)

Coding:
I am not a coder, but I hope that reusing auxiliary unarmed attacks and shieldlike penalties isn't hard

Interface
(W) command may work nicely for wielding offhand weapon. While you don't wear weapon, you still use a shield slot for it

[Strongpoint]

No good player takes an offhand punch over a shield in the current system, so why would they take an offhand weapon attack (with no brands or randart properties) over a shield?

Because dagger may be better than offhand punch? And dual wielding should be inferior to shields without serious skill investments.

And it's more like a dreaming thread. I really doubt that dual wielding will ever be in crawl in any form

[dpeg]

The real reason behind the "won't do dual-wielding" is this: currently, there is a choice for melee fighters between damage (two-handed weapon) and defense (shield). Dual-wielding would be nothing but another option for damage. This is pointless -- the damage route exists already. (I learned to state it this clearly from b0rsuk.)

The other reason is fear of power spiral. You can see it specifically for dual-wielding in Nethack.

[Regnix]

Simple implementation: Just rename "triple sword" to "dual blades" and change the graphic to imply that two blades are in use. Done!

[smock]

The real reason behind the "won't do dual-wielding" is this: currently, there is a choice for melee fighters between damage (two-handed weapon) and defense (shield). Dual-wielding would be nothing but another option for damage. This is pointless -- the damage route exists already. (I learned to state it this clearly from b0rsuk.)

The other reason is fear of power spiral. You can see it specifically for dual-wielding in Nethack.

Apologies for riffing off ideas on the no-do list.

I don't understand the reason why dual-wielding being just another damage option makes it a bad choice. I think most player who yearn for dual-wielding don't want more power -- they want more cool. Dual-wielding is cool. It's fun to think about your tiny insane Spriggan who dual-wields daggers. Or your giant insane Ogre who is dual-wielding maces. Or whatnot. (Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe dual-wielding fanatics are all power gamers.)

If it's more fun to dual-wield weapons but not more powerful than using one big weapon, why not add dual-wielding?

Dual-wielding could be an interesting strategic choice. (I don't think anyone would support it if it weren't; for example, if it were stronger then 2-handed weapons or shields.) Do I spend lots of XP on dual-wielding? Or just grab the biggest single club I can find? Or invest in a shield? A heavily-armoured drawf gladiator (with good fighting and axes aptitudes) or a Kobold Skald with access to Condensation Shield might choose dual-wielding over shields.

I think power spiral and balance concerns are great reasons to avoid an potential feature. Or perhaps dual-wielding being just another damage option is a great reason to keep it lower-priority. (Perhaps so low that it will just never happen.) That's just fine.

While I'd like to play a dual-wielding game at some point, I'd prefer that shields be rebalanced. I just think that they're too strong right now. I don't much like the luck factor of finding an early buckler. (A wand of healing is stronger but the homely buckler is one of the stronger early finds.)

[Jeremiah]

The real reason behind the "won't do dual-wielding" is this: currently, there is a choice for melee fighters between damage (two-handed weapon) and defense (shield). Dual-wielding would be nothing but another option for damage. This is pointless -- the damage route exists already. (I learned to state it this clearly from b0rsuk.)

The other reason is fear of power spiral. You can see it specifically for dual-wielding in Nethack.

I guess the other reason re balance is simply this: if dual wielding was worse than a 2-handed weapon, then no-one would use it, but if it was better then no one would use 2-handed weapons.

It might be possible to come up with ways round this - eg make 2-handed weapons better for characters with high strength but dual wielding better with high dex.

Another alternative would be to make dual-wielding intermediate between 2-handed weapons and shields in terms of offence/defence - ie dual wielding would not do as much damage as 2-handed, but you could parry with the offhand weapon, which would be less likely than blocking with a shield (and probably only against melee, not ranged.)

[Bim]

Similar to Dpeg and Minmay I agree that this does seem like a 'why not?' argument. Although I partially agree that it's 'cool', it doesn't add anything else to the game. If we take away the resistances and specials of the offhand weapon, then what really is the difference between dual wielding and using your offhand punch, other than it 'looking cool'? Your unarmed skill boosts the offhand/horns/whatever strikes (I think??) and so really, adding an dual wield skill wouldn't add anything.

As said, its power vs defence, and dual wielding doesn't add anything to that really. It's one of the few things I really agree with the devs for the 'no go' list. Props to everyone for not just saying 'no.' as well, and I do think its good to talk about these issues every once in a while, and as seen with felids, things do change.

[snow]

I say do it because so many want it.

To begin short swords blades and do almost no damage whatsoever late game. Furthermore there's no reason to get your short blades past 14. So let's say you can only wield two short blades but when you do your short blades skill for each halves. There's potential for really late game it to be good but not worth it before that.

Turn off short blades and invest in other skills or get it past 14 and go for dual wielding? Interesting decisions for an interesting game. Finally resistances aren't an issue at all. Even if you do manage to find two short blades with resistances on them you'd already find the same resistances elsewhere by the time you actually need them.

I don't see any balance issues whatsoever with dual wielding and it can add interesting choices to the game, character progress, and make the game just that more fun for the role playing type. Why dismiss an idea without even giving it a second thought? Why do that to something with so much potential?

As a final note... just imagine that you get two attacks, one from each weapon, every time you attack but your weapons skill is halved when wielding both. It won't be worth it at all to dual wield early on and it'll only be worth it late game. And even then duel wielding sabers of electricity would only do about as much damage as a branded demon whip but require a hell of a lot more investment.

Why would people bother then? Well if you've already invested in short blades and hit your plateau why not push further instead of accepting that you'll only ever be able to ninja runes and avoid danger because your short blades literally can't cut it. Pick up a second blade and fight on! Or... invest in said danger avoiding abilities and continue to ninja. Interesting game choices for an interesting game... or would be if people even gave this any thought at all.

[dpeg]

There is also the problem that short blades then to do low damage (compared to heavier weapons at similar skill), so you might not get through that monster's AC, no matter if you hit once or twice. However, short blades already have their niche: they are the perfect stabbing tool. (If I get my wish, then the Stabbing skill will be removed at some point, and stabbing a passive "move", with the Short Blades skill helping.)

snow: I believe that some of us are able to see potential in an idea. Dual wielding raises a lot of problems (coding and interface are not the biggest ones) and, as we tried to explain, it is not obvious wether it yields anything apart from the wow factor. We are also aware of the fact that dual wielding, arguably one of the last big additions to Nethack, broke that game even more.

No developer will be working on this. If we get a patch, we will look at it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Stormfox]

Another huge balance issue that would be introduced with dual wielding would be dual branding. Imagine a dagger of electrocution or venom in the off hand -- any brand that is independent of AC. At high skill you essentially get a free secondary brand application even if you're not otherwise damaging the monster with that second weapon.

Look at what dual-wielding a silver saber does in Nethack, for an implemented example.

[KoboldLord]

Any chance we can stop dog-whistling Nethack? Fixes for dual-wielding are already implemented in Sporkhack, and it was actually a fairly simple correction that hasn't made it into vanilla only because it's been years and years since the last official release. It turns out that the accuracy penalties that are supposed to compensate for the extra attack are a whole lot more relevant if strong monsters actually have the AC to cause the player to miss some of the time. Two-handed weapons are very strong in Spork, sword-and-board is viable, and even a dual-wielder will sometimes choose to switch to one weapon to duel a particularly dangerous enemy.

The only reason Crawl need to not implement dual-wielding is the fact that every single member of the devteam has been polled (repeatedly) as to whether they have any interest in implementing dual-wielding, and they've all refused. There's nothing interesting to discuss until there's actual developer interest, because in the end every implemented feature springs forth solely from the uncompensated labor of some member of the devteam.

[galehar]

The only reason Crawl need to not implement dual-wielding is the fact that every single member of the devteam has been polled (repeatedly) as to whether they have any interest in implementing dual-wielding, and they've all refused.

Hehe, good point. But note also that there is a lot of turn-over within the team. I for one am not opposed to the idea in principle. But there are 2 reasons for not doing it now. First, there's still a lot of balancing to do regarding melee, ranged, weapons, 1 hand vs 2 hands, skills and stats. Adding dual wielding could only make things worse. The second reason is that it's not worth it. for judging an idea, I try to evaluate the dev cost which is the amount of work to design it, code it and balance it. Add to that the player cost: added complexity to the interface and the gameplay. Divide it by what it brings to the game. It's not worth it.

[dpeg]

KL: you have a point, but I have played NH for so long that I am fully entitled to dog-whistle it for the rest of my lifetime. That game also shows the problem of adding stuff only on the premise of "it's cool". There is no doubt that dual-wielding could be balanced in Crawl, but the question remains: What sets it apart from two-handers? And that could be answered positively as well, but there are so many pressing issues that should be addressed.
We don't develop along "what would be cool to have" but "what needs attention most". It is true that there are additions mostly becomes some developers just fancies them so much. But mostly when we add things (recall the new species, portal vaults, branch, gods), it is about increasing variety and/or creating choices. I can see none of that with dual-wielding. Even if someone gave a decent patch to us, it would remain our duty to keep something up to date that nobody really asked for.

[Shade]

it would remain our duty to keep something up to date that nobody really asked for.

That nobody may technically be a plurality, but none of them are on the dev team. Not that I care too much one way or another (as long as whatever was done was mostly balanced within a release or two).

[RFHolloway]

The only way that i could see dual wielding working is if the secondary weapon didn't provide additional atacks, but simply provided resistances, stat effects and protection. you might go as far as making swapping between the two held weapons as a quicker action than a normal switch.

That gives the following features
dual is different to single weapons - you swap shield benefits for the passive abilities on the secondary weapons
dual is different to 2 handed weapons - you swap extra damage for the passive abilities

[mumra]

The only way that i could see dual wielding working is if the secondary weapon didn't provide additional atacks, but simply provided resistances, stat effects and protection. you might go as far as making swapping between the two held weapons as a quicker action than a normal switch.

It kind of makes no sense from a player's perspective and seems incredibly arbitrary (as do all the other proposals suggested here). Crawl already has some very complicated decisions regarding management of inventory and equipment - adding an extra layer of decision just seems redundant and confusing. Actually giving people a free extra way to combine item resistances removes some of the more difficult decisions from equipment management.

I'd much rather see melee expanded with special moves that have AoE; that might actually tempt me to play melee characters once in a while

[Charliy]

I'd much rather see melee expanded with special moves that have AoE; that might actually tempt me to play melee characters once in a while

The problem with adding new attacks or AoE is that it would necessitate a dramatic change melee mechanics to keep the game balanced. As it is melee are quite strong once they survive the early game, and giving them shiny new toys, while adding depth, will skew the difficulty of the game in the wrong direction at the wrong point in the game.

[mumra]

The problem with adding new attacks or AoE is that it would necessitate a dramatic change melee mechanics to keep the game balanced. As it is melee are quite strong once they survive the early game, and giving them shiny new toys, while adding depth, will skew the difficulty of the game in the wrong direction at the wrong point in the game.

Perhaps ... but the way I was thinking about this was if they were effectively "melee spells" so would actually force some XP investment into side spell schools. This would in some ways bring fighters more in line with spellcasters, in that most spellcasters will invest a little into some melee schools (Fighting / Dodging / Shields). You could still have a pure melee build that ignored the special moves. Plus the AoE moves would never do as much damage to individual enemies as just hitting them directly, they would just be useful for either clearing multiple weaker enemies, or softening up harder targets.

An example:

"Quake" - Lvl 6 Maces & Flails / Earth - You smash the ground with your hammer, creating a shockwave that damages targets in a radius around you. Adjacent tiles receive 25% weapon damage, adjacent to them receive 10%.

So this would require a hammer and 6MP to use, and either some early investment in Earth or a very high Maces & Flails skill. Whether trog would approve of melee spells is another consideration.

I'm sure some balancing would still be required, but to me the big difference between melee and spellcasting right now is that spellcasters end up with all these ways to destroy a huge number of targets in a single turn, whereas melee has to go one-on-one right through the game (except thru God abilities I guess?) Actually these type of skills would allow melee in general to take a small nerf. Anyway I know that special moves have been in discussion for a while on the wiki and it seems a number of devs support the idea, this is just my view on how they might work.

[Bim]

I really like the idea of melee abilities, and I think it could easily fit within the framework of crawl, and add decisions instead of going all str/armour/shields. This would also be a greatly needed buff for hybrids which have been massively nerfed in this version. However, they then tread the line of enchantments/hexes if they deal with magic. For instance, quake is good, but I can't see any other type of 'special move' that didn't involve direct damage that wasn't an enchantment type thing.

One idea that's been looked at on the Wiki which I think is great idea is getting an active bonus when getting to the last level of a skill, like increasing the range of conjurations or letting awake creatures sometimes forget you with 27 stealth. This is great as it means that there is a point to getting to lv27, however I think abilities could be added earlier. For instance, quake could be a level 15 M&F ability, which uses up a lot of hunger/whatever balancing it needs. Similarly, polearms could have penetration at 15 and so on. This would be a big buff to melee chars. which they don't reallllly need, compared to hybrids anyway.

[mumra]

I really like the idea of melee abilities, and I think it could easily fit within the framework of crawl, and add decisions instead of going all str/armour/shields. This would also be a greatly needed buff for hybrids which have been massively nerfed in this version. However, they then tread the line of enchantments/hexes if they deal with magic. For instance, quake is good, but I can't see any other type of 'special move' that didn't involve direct damage that wasn't an enchantment type thing.

Some other ideas that I had:

- Whirlwind blade. Short Blades / Air, you jump up in the air and slice all adjacent targets with a spinning sword attack.
- Figure of eight. Maces & Flails / not sure about spell school. Swings a flail in a figure of eight, hitting tiles either side of you (not sure best way to handle aiming).
- Dagger of death. Short Blades / Necromancy. Your dagger takes on an unholy corporeal form and flies in a circle around you, dealing damage to a single tile each turn (while you carry on fighting with fists or another weapon)

Ok so that's all I've got right now But you could have other cross-school abilities, e.g. Dodging moves that attack at the same time as moving backwards. The difficulty with all this is you'd need interesting and unique moves for all different types of weapons, as well as enough variation in spell schools. There are some other ideas on the wiki as well.

One idea that's been looked at on the Wiki which I think is great idea is getting an active bonus when getting to the last level of a skill, like increasing the range of conjurations or letting awake creatures sometimes forget you with 27 stealth. This is great as it means that there is a point to getting to lv27, however I think abilities could be added earlier. For instance, quake could be a level 15 M&F ability, which uses up a lot of hunger/whatever balancing it needs. Similarly, polearms could have penetration at 15 and so on. This would be a big buff to melee chars. which they don't reallllly need, compared to hybrids anyway.

Care has to be taken not to step on the toes of Gods with active abilities Also I think it's somewhat limiting to do it this way and can't account for different types of weapon. It also removes any decision from the abilities if you just get them automatically at 27 skill.

[dpeg]

You guys should really start reading the wiki. Here is the relevant page: https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... pon_reform
(I know it may not be easy to find, but the wiki's search is your friend.) As you can see, the topic was thought about for quite a while. You will also see that spell-like weapon powers are exactly what we not want. There's spells and there's gods, no need to make weapons similar to those.

[mumra]

You guys should really start reading the wiki. Here is the relevant page: https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... pon_reform
(I know it may not be easy to find, but the wiki's search is your friend.) As you can see, the topic was thought about for quite a while. You will also see that spell-like weapon powers are exactly what we not want. There's spells and there's gods, no need to make weapons similar to those.

I'd actually seen that wiki page already, the problem is there's a lot on it and it's sometimes hard to differentiate what are supported ideas and what aren't. I hadn't realised spell-like weapon skills were definitely not wanted, for instance - some of the ideas on that page sound kind of like that, but it's not clear there what the mechanism would be.

[dpeg]

It does say "no active abilities" right at the top though

[mumra]

It does say "no active abilities" right at the top though

I think that was in my mind when I said "don't step on the toes of Gods"