Talk:Dual wielding

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I was unable to find anything on here and if there already is don't give me too much heck for it :P anyways what I'd love to see in GW2 is for the Warrior (and/or whatever Warrior type classes there may be) to have the option/ability to dual wield. Like that of the Assasin but on a larger scale. Since there will still be the option of wielding a shield I think it would be awesome as a tank to be able to dual wield a set of swords or axes and posibly mis match them. This would have a much stronger effect to the strenght of the Warrior and it would also increase the effectiveness and the awesomeness of AOE attacks. -Reckless 08:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But Wouldnt that be WoW like. you know,,, LOL jk, just pulling Naut's strings.--Knighthonor 22:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Likely DW is learned by Skill Tree[edit]

IMO this will be ability learned from the new Trait tree.--Knighthonor 22:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It does say that warriors can "learn" to dual wield. So yes. --Kyoshi (Talk) User Kyoshi sig.png 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope it's not actually a Trait, though. Because I think we'd only get to choose ONE trait to equip,... If that one HAS to be Dual Wielding, you can't choose anything else, mehh. --Naoroji User Naoroji Sigavatar.jpg I need help! 08:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I still don't think it's a single trait system either. --Kyoshi (Talk) User Kyoshi sig.png 00:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
By the Six True Gods, the Human Gods, the Old Ones, and, above all else, by Kilroy Stonekin, I sure hope not. Zolann The IrreverentUser Zolann The Irreverent Mysterious Summoning Stone.png 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Five days later: We now know that it isn't a 1-trait-only case but structured like GW1's attribute system - a number of points to use. -- Konig/talk 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
But will we be able to move the attribute points once we use them? Eive Talk Windgrace 02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, traits (and weapon sets) are no-cost swappable anytime outside of combat. Arshay Duskbrow 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case[edit]

You know there is going to be a lot of this.

I suppose it would help if I sigged my posts... XD Ravencroft0 11:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

More Dual Wielding[edit]

I just expanded the article with necromancers DW'ing options. I'm not sure exactly how weapons and/or their masteries work if you have to put points into them or not, but as long as you have your points specced properly (or lack their of) you should be able to create any combination of main-hand/off-hand weapons, so would a ranger holding an axe or sword with a dagger off hand be considered DW'ing? They are holding and attacking with 2 weapons yes?. -- Broodling 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed that Thieves can dual wield swords? Daggers and Pistols are confirmed in videos, but heard nothing about swords (outside of the main hand). 68.144.77.185 11:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Any traits to encourage Dual Wielding?[edit]

You know, it is strange when there are no bonuses for Dual Wielding (except +2 skills for second arm slot). I am not talking about magic use of, for example elementalist or necromancers daggers, but Rangers(axes), Thieves(pistols, daggers), Engineers(pistols), Warriors(swords, axes, maces). The only one case for now is Thief with 5-th skill, that can be balanced in the current mechanics field. So i expect some kind of traits for this. For example activation and recharge boost (50% may be) for Rangers, Engineers, Warriors or initiative boost(max pool or regeneration) for Thieves. Btw, imho guardians should have swords. So far may be we should add a line like: "There are no confirmed traits concerning Dual Wielding yet." ""--193.105.40.18 07:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That would assume the possibility of traits for dual wielding, which would be speculating. I wouldn't be so happy with it, as it would discourage the ability to use mixed weapons. --Xu Davella 12:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Speculation? May be, but it's logical. Today mechanics is done in absurd way (drawback found!), when, for example warrior adrenaline sword skill is performed with one hand only (we are back in 1990?). Second sword now is like a scepter-shield. What for they boast "profession=style of play"? When ambidexterity is a taboo, when soldier take second sword and can't hit with both, when only one profession have a skill that combine "things" that he actually holds in his right and left hands. Strange mechanics, isn't it?--193.105.40.18 07:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that argument was supposed to relate to putting "There are no confirmed traits concerning Dual Wielding yet." on the page. However, do note that 1990 was the year the first Final Fantasy came out in the U.S., on the NES. If you're looking for a year to compare GW2's warrior's lack of dynamic skill animations to, try 2004-5. Also, I'm fairly certain you don't understand the definition of the word mechanics when used in this context, you're using it in a way similar to physics, which is just plain incorrect. Anyways, I don't think we should put that note on the page, as speculation is not allowed in the main space. -User Eive Windgrace Harbinger of the Deceiver.png 07:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually word "mechanics" should bring logic. Example: when Warrior adrenaline skill Flurry is used (when sword is in main hand) it can’t be done as if there is nothing in second hand. Think about it, it’s Flurry, small tornado. Even if shield is in second hand, it should be at least finished with "shield bash" for some stunning. Btw, it is going to be off topic a little, so further discussing is unproductive, but in the end I think you’ve got my point. Just alive gameplay.--193.105.40.18 11:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Mechanics refer to how the game works, and usually has nothing to do with either logic or physics. Real life ones, that is. I had always pictured Flurry with nothing but rapid stabbing with your main hand sword. The shield (or any other weapons) you carry will add Power to the attack, but that's about it. It would be just little too much work for purely cosmetic effect to create different animations for each off-hand weapon when using a main hand weapon attack. How would you "Flurry" with a warhorn? Blow it at your enemy and have them take damage or stab them with the pointy mouthpiece? Ew. In games game mechanic practicality wins over real life logical practicality. Mediggo 11:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way... Dual wielding isn't even a game mechanic as it is now, it's just an option on what weapons you equip. There has been no indications that there are any differences between using two swords and using a sword and a shield, besides the obvious skills 4 and 5. To put it differently, your off-hand weapon (or shield, or focus item, or warhorn, or torch, or whatever you decide to put in your off hand slot) has no relation to your main hand weapon (unless you're a thief, that is), so dual wielding is just a player given definition of certain weapon pair-ups.--Tuomir 23:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't you still get an offensive stat boost from wielding two weapons though? Even if the actual weapon power doesn't apply (which it might), weapons also give innate stat bonuses that might not be the same on another weapon. Arshay Duskbrow 10:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe dual wielding essentially gives you 6 slots to boost a specific weapon type (i.e: two pistols, both increased damage if there is a trait for it on one of them). I have no idea if it actually works like that, though. On the other hand I find it weird to encourage dual wielding moreso than other combos, as that takes versatility away from the game. - Infinite - talk 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Yes, I believe you may be right. If you are heavily specced into a particular weapon trait-wise, of course it would be to the best advantage to use two of them. Arshay Duskbrow 04:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) but traits are per weapon: Main-hand Dagger traits (can select 1 major main-hand dagger trait from pool of main hand dagger traits, both major and minor; and 1/2 minor main-hand dagger traits from the pool of main hand dagger traits, still major and minor) and then your Off-hand dagger traits (with 1/2 minor off-hand dagger traits from a pool of ONLY minor off-hand dagger traits). These sets of traits are for two different lines, with two different traits. The ONLY thing i can see them giving benefits for dual-wielding is the main-hand Major trait that increases dmg with the weapon type by 10% (and i think thieves have 15%?). If it works the way it sounds, having it as your major trait (from your main-hand dagger trait pool), it increases dmg of that same weapon even if it's also in your offhand (for offensive weapon skills in 4/5). Example: dual wielding daggers - your main hand dagger has the dagger dmg increase trait, and you use Earthquake (elementalist, earth attunement, slot 4 dagger off-hand). Even though the major trait for dagger dmg is on the main-hand trait line, you used a dagger skill, so it still gets the 10% bonus dmg that ONLY a main-hand weapon (for the major trait) can bring. Warrior's Axe has 10% dmg on axe attacks, but if you go Axe/Shield, your shield doesn't get the dmg increase, while your Axe/Axe skills 4/5 would. Get the idea? That's the way it seems to me, at least. ~~ User Kiomadoushi sig.png Kiomadoushi 05:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. I don't know how many traits will encourage dual-wielding in the end, but I am sure that they are not dominant *enough* to discourage other combinations. - Infinite - talk 13:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Does wielding 2 weapons of the same type give any advantage?[edit]

Arguing from Mastery traits placed on any main hand, one handed trait slots, damage is boosted for "a weapon" of that type, and not only for the main-hand weapon of that type (while, for example, Warrior Off-Hand Axe Mastery specifies damage is boosted for the Off-hand Axe only). Does this mean wielding a couple of swords will make, say, Swordsmanship trait affect both your swords?(Making all 5 attack skill slots stack additional bleeding?) CaiusTheBig User talk:Caiusthebig 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is either simply "yes" or not-so-simply "no; weapon traits only affect the weapon in the hand for which the traits are slotted." We have not had a chance to test this as of yet. - Infinite - talk 09:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Off-hand weapon skills such as Impale (warrior) and Riposte both have quite lengthy recharge times as well, so it shouldn't be much of a problem if they both caused additional bleeding. And because I'm the wagering type, I'd say main hand weapon traits only affect main hand weapon skills regardless of vague descriptions. Or that only traits which specifically mention they affect all attacks do. Or that the trait system is currently being or has been reworked anyways. Mediggo 09:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Necessary?[edit]

As of our current knowledge of the game, this page is simply a restatement of what both Weapon and the respective weapon pages already state. There is currently nothing special about dual wielding weapons over anything else, so I'm proposing deletion of this page. Aqua (T|C) 03:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Melee attack and ranged attack are also kind of pointless. --Gandlethorpe 05:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
agreed about this article, disagreed about melee and ranged. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png
I'm undecided about the other two, I think this one should not be deleted. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.png A F K When Needed 06:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete them all. Range and Melee are just ridiculous having around as (some) weapons provide both. The guardian sword for example and engineer shield (sort of). The warrior sword in offhand can be thrown. It would end as us having most weapons on both pages (Which, again, would be ridiculous). Aquas right about this page, too. Lhimez
Agree on all of them. Those pages seem totally unnecessary to me as of now. Alfa-R User Alfa-R sig.png 11:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'll tag melee/ranged attack for deletion shortly, as both pages are mostly speculative in nature (not all martial weapons are necessarily melee i.e. rangers throw axes). Aqua (T|C) 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting rid of all three would be a good idea. No one will specifically search for these pages, it's common sense. --Xu Davella 23:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
We still need pages for melee/ranged/projectile/whatever attacks. This page isn't worth it, though. 96.8.186.21 07:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We dont need pages for that, we could just print it into the weapon page or anything related to it. Lhimez 10:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The various types of attacks should be merged into this article. - Infinite - talk 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Lhimez 19:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)