Parrying with daggers

In Ultima V through Ultima VII, the player was allowed to equip a main-gauche as a secondary weapon in place of a shield. I'd like to see parrying daggers in the game, which would enhance a dual-wielding approach to rogue character types.

There's no reason why a player shouldn't be allowed to equip a regular dagger as a secondary weapon; it just wouldn't be as effective. So you'd have a main-gauche, perhaps a swordbreaker or trident dagger. Daggers with wavy blades, like the kris, were also used for parrying.

 

There's actually no reason fighters shouldn't always have something in their off hand. Shield, weapon, or two handed weapon are always* better options than just one single handed weapon and nothing else.

(* there is a rare case where if you're trying to grab your opponent that you might want nothing in your other hand, but that's a really really really really specific and rare case. )

 

I think giving up an off hand might allow someone to use spells, etc. Really have no idea how the class/build system looks. But I feel like giving up this obvious advantage might allow you to bring some other skill to the game. Similar to wearing lighter armor.

 

Spells are a good point. I forget about them when thinking about the realities of fighting, and how much they change everything. As long as that off hand is doing something, it's a net gain.

Would people go for that though? Being unable to cast with weapons in their hands? Or a penalty if they're holding one?

For the record, I'd be totally cool with that.

 

I would generally agree that a hand that isn't busy is a waste.. but although it doesn't translate well in games.. a free off hand is also useful for both defense and offense. Beating a weapon side for example. Granted.. it's not always wise if you don't know what you're doing but it's not a huge leap from doing the same with daggers. It also allows some measure of grappling. I think game combat systems are a long ways away from that though. So much the pity.

That being said.. any weapon can be used defensively. I'd rather see it as a skill than associated with a specific weapon.. (or in this case a specific style of dagger or short sword). Sure a shield is pretty effective at a stop block.. but beat asides.. sweeps and parries are also possible with just about any weapon as are stop blocks. When it's weapon vs weapon the biggest consideration is weapon size/mass. You wouldn't try to stop block a mace with a dagger.. that's just insane.. but you can still do all the other stuff.

 

Would you want to block another weapon with a mace though? For a defensive weapon, aren't you looking for something that's lighter, and won't weigh the other hand down? I couldn't imagine someone in battle with a sword in one hand and a mace in another. For defense against maces, obviously a shield would be more useful than a dagger, though.

 

In my mind the only thing I'd describe as a defensive weapon is a shield.. or buckler (the difference between these part from size is shields are held on the forearm.. bucklers are held in the hand are used to punch.. never stop block).

Sure you can block with a mace.. Maces tend to be very sturdy and usually will have a metal shaft. Plus they have a lot of heft.

As for weighing the other hand down.. quite frankly most weapons just aren't THAT heavy.. shields weigh more than pretty much any one handed weapon. I've done plenty of fight choreography and freeform fighting and lean towards dual wielding. I often go with sword and axe in the off hand which in terms of weight is similar to a mace. I've seen other combinations including dual wielding maces.

A lot of it comes down to personal preferences. I just never took to a shield. I feel like the dual wielding gives you a lot more freedom which I find preferable to constantly holding up a wall in front of me. As for what's more useful.. daggers are downright deadly. Nasty and quick little bastards that can get around just about anything in a flash. Plus they're more maneuverable than anything else. Daggers get a pretty bad wrap in games. It annoys me. I'd rather face a well armed knight than someone skilled in dual wielding daggers.. downright scary if you ask me. Dual short swords is almost as bad.

Of course, any weapon is scary is the right hands. Shields do provide a solid defense.. you can also bash and do a kind of slashing blow with them depending on the design.. throwing aside.. look at how Captain America uses the shield.. it can be used very offensively. (Why I call it a defensive weapon.. it's still a weapon if you have that mindset to use it that way).

 

I was thinking about the handiness of dual-wielding, because I'm not sure that it was done historically except with small weapons like daggers. Sure, shields are heavier, but they also seem more handy than lugging around an extra weapon... do you know anything about the history of this?

 

If we're talking historical standards I'm not convinced they really apply. Our avatars are not soldiers. A standing army is more likely to have a standard suited for large scale battles.. which in part would also be influences by the costs of arming those armies. You wouldn't want every solider to be using different combinations of weapons and that'd be harder to develop strategies for.

If we're just talking about interest in the history of it all.. no I can't say I've ever looked in it..

 

Basically anything you can put between your opponent and you is better than nothing. But I think you started to gronk on why a mace would be better than a dagger, and that is weight. A lot of parrying daggers were meant for use against fencing foils, and/or were carried around in town in lieu of a real shield or buckler. If you can get a shield, that's WAY better for defense.

But lets talk about mace v. dagger. While the dagger could certainly get to where it needs to be quicker, it' has almost no stopping power behind it. No leverage, no weight, nothing. At best you can use it to deflect and help guide the weapon away from you while you're dodging out of the way. On top of that you have to be crazy accurate with where you're placing that dagger. That's not a lot of metal to block with. Again, better than nothing, but not my first choice.

Maces, on the other hand have weight and length. On top of that, they tend to have a nice protrusion at the end that lets you actually catch and guide the opponents weapon to where you want it making an opening for your other weapon. The length also means a larger area is threatened by my range of attack. Where someone could get in closer flanking me on my off hand with a dagger, they couldn't do that as easily with a mace.

If you want to see how a dagger would be used against a heavier weapon, google: Escrima and dagger, and look up some of the videos. You'll see that the stick is used almost exclusively for blocking, and the attacks are primarily intended to create openings for the dagger as a killing move. But the dagger is just that, to slash the arms when they get close, or to finish off the opponent, it's not really a parrying weapon.

 

That guy has a ton of really good info on historical arms and armor (and some other archaeology stuff... and some fantasy stuff). So after you're done with that video, should probably check out a bunch of the rest of his stuff if you're really interested in this kind of thing.

 

Yea, I'm also thinking of knife-fighting situations in towns by roguish characters.

 

In towns it tends to work because you can get right up on someone without them suspecting a fight is coming. In that distance you can stab them multiple times before they can even react, you're also not bumping into people, it's easy to hide, etc. If there was some sort of concealment factor, that could be interesting, maybe an improvement to your sneak or something.

But in a fantasy game where everyone can walk around in town in full armor with a shield, the dagger seems woefully under powered. If they see you coming, you're not going to hold your own against anyone with a bigger weapon.

There are interesting modifiers you could add to the game in terms of how close are noncombatants and other people you're not aiming at, and such, where a dagger might gain the upper hand. But I doubt we'd see those get put in.

 

There does exist a style of fighting that benefits from using a one handed blade and having your offhand empty. It's not terribly uncommon, and the point is to do with focus and balance. The theory goes, "I can focus all my attention into this one blade, you are constantly shifting focus between your two items, my sword moves faster than your two items, and so do I, unencumbered by a second weapon."

Empty offhand tends to show up in fighting styles that emphasize speed and grace over armor and power.

 

I don't know about the philosophy but even if you don't have anything in your off hand that doesn't mean it should be idle. I've figure if you have to concentrate on your own weapon then you're probably already dead.

 

Miyamoto Musashi invented this dual-wielding sword style

Chinese double broadsword


Also, Kali (aka eskrima, arnis) is an excellent example of dual-wielding martial arts - typically you see its stick techniques, but they also use knives and machetes, closely related to the chinese broadsword (sabre)

 

Examples? I'd be really interested to see what styles use this in a life or death fighting situation.

Because in almost every case I can think of, when focusing on one weapon, it's with two hands for control and power. There may be moments in that technique of a one handed attack for reach, but the base fighting is two handed. Which has it's own advantages.

I'm not super coordinated and don't focus a lot on my second weapon in mock combat, but having one has always been more beneficial than not, even when I'm just focusing on my main weapon. So you can focus all your attention and skill on your main weapon, but when that opportunity comes up, or his friend jumps in the fight, that back up weapon is a life saver... literally.

 

Florentine fencing, for one. The sword has an elaborate hilt guard that is actually used to parry (and it doesn't allow room for a second hand), the fighters wear no armor more protective than quilted padding, and the entire fighting style emphasizes dodging and quick, precise movements. A killing stroke is literally "the tip of my sword cut one of your larger arteries". Then I just back away and watch you bleed to death.

Also, to continue the "empty offhand" idea, I was told of one of the last great masters of this art, which continued to be legal into the present century at least, who won a duel in seconds by having a SECOND SWORD concealed behind him. The stance of having one hand behind your back occurs regularly in this style of fighting, it lets you manage the weight and balance of that empty hand. This guy was holding a backup sword. He performed an exaggerated sweeping parry, THREW his sword, and while his opponent was off balance and distracted by what looked like a rookie mistake, brought the second sword out for a thrust to the heart. End of fight. A cheap trick, but I don't think his opponent had much to say about it afterward. At no time was he using both swords at once, the years of training he had put into that single sword technique would have been fighting against him the entire time.

 

Ok I'm going to nitpick a bit here but 'parry' I think is fairly misunderstood unless someone has a reliable definition they can show.. and by that I also mean not from wiki. Parrying is not a defensive move.. it's not something you do with a hilt guard. It's actually quite offensive and if done properly sets you up for a good counterstrike (the riposte if you're fencing.. I don't know if there's a non-fencing term for it). Sorry.. pet peeve.. hmmm I seem to have a lot of those.. I should work on that.

 

A parry is when you redirect a blow. Typically, you would parry perpendicular to the attack, or use a circular parry for a linear attack & linear parry for a circular attack. In a basic punching example, someone punches across their body at you at you push their hand further across their own body before the fist reaches you (while also moving your body out of the way in case you fail). This prevents the strike and can also turn their body or put them in a compromising position.

A block is when you meet the blow with opposite directional force to stop it. ---> ouch <---

Both are primarily defensive, but the parry is considered more efficient for economy of motion & easier on the body. A parry is a flowing move and usually continues into an attack, which some would call a riposte or counter-strike. Now, a block can be offensive as well - in southern tiger style gung fu for instance, a good block will break bones. How? You are basically striking the object that is striking you. A parry can contain a strike, but it is primarily about redirecting an attack.