Parrying with daggers

this is a good example of parrying in unarmed combat. the principle does not change with a weapon.

a little bit on parrying w/an edged weapon http://www.thearma.org/essays/parry.htm

 

hmmm not entirely how I learned it.. except the part about following with an attack.. let me see if I can use that punching example.. which to me I'd call that a beat aside since that's what you're doing but it doesn't necessarily involve an attack.. rather let's say that blow is coming from your right.. you'd use your right arm to knock your opponents off target (from the inside) while stepping in and following through with a blow from your right at the same time.

Since you've deflected his blow to the outside while at the same time getting inside.. he's wide open. There's no "he may be in a compromising position".. rather he IS in a compromising position and if he doesn't have really good reflexes he's going to be the one taking the hit. This to me is the essence of the parry.

 

It's worth noting, I think, that parrying is considered more efficient, except when it's not feasible. You can't parry a cross swing with a Maul. You can dodge, but you aren't going to just whisk a twenty pound spiked hammer head away by redirecting it. Whereas, with a shield, blocking can be very very efficient. Yes, you hit me, but technically you hit my shield, thus I am not bleeding, just knocked back.

This would be an inherent weakness in parrying with daggers, as the idea of someone stopping a two handed great axe with a main gauche SHOULD be laughable.

 

Dual wielding sounds fun. Don't really care about the specifics though...

 

To be clear, that is an example of one type of parry. These maneuvers occur in many variations and appear differently depending on the situation and on opponent response. Parry is a general term used to describe any redirection of force. Just holding your hand out in front so a punch slides off to the side is a parry. It is likely that different traditions use this term for specific techniques or include the counter strike with it. For instance, I would not really refer to his palm-strike to the opponent's shoulder as a parry, but I think he does so to indicate that it is 'warding off' the opponent rather than being used as a percussive attack.

 

Ok well not being a complete expert on the subject of terminology I shall yield the arguement here.

 

If the devs choose to allow dual wielding to have unrealistic advantages, I'd love it if they then let me dual shield. I could spike the shields, level up my shield rush and shield bash, and take almost no melee damage on my forward facing. That would be awesome.

 

I wouldn't say dual wielding gives any unrealistic advantages. Any weapon in the hands of a properly trained/skilled individual is pretty significant. If anything I'd say the style of combat is different is all. Even if you're unarmed if you know how to deal with an armed opponent a dual wielder's weapons can be neutralized like any other.

Dual wielding is pretty fun though but at the end of the day it's not weapon vs weapon.. it's skill vs skill.

 

Actually, both a mace and a ball and chain can be used to parry very nicely. The mace has significant mass, and thus a short swing can build up enough force for a parry. Shorter swing, less time and energy spent than would be on a longer swing, and it has the advantage of being able to parry larger, heavier weapons. IF you trained in it, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone parry with a mace. A ball and chain can likewise have advantages, as it can tangle with the opponents weapon, giving you an effective grapple on a blade. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone parry a mace swing with a mace.

 

As pointed out elsewhere, the idea of dual wielding itself IS an unrealistic advantage. Running an independent weapon in each hand just doesn't happen, physics, physiology, and skill focus all work against it. My point was that in some games, equipping two swords does give an advantage, such as much faster attack speeds, and that IS unrealistic. But, if the game dev's choose to ignore the real world and let people dual wield their way to combat advantage (and, if this happens, simple player ecology will make EVERYONE start doing it to keep up), then I'd like to see dual shield. Also unrealistic for the exact same reasons, but boy wouldn't it be funny.

 

Show me a game with a realistic melee combat system and I've got a bridge to sell you. I happen to be a dual wielder when opportunities arises to grab my sword and axe.. if it's reality we're talking about then it's not a great advantage unless your opponent doesn't know what they're doing. You can pull off some slick moves though and the occasional attacking with both weapons.. but there are always ways to deal with that.

 

Not really in the market for buying a bridge, did you have any other offers? I really mean every word I'm typing here, if there is a benefit in game to dual wielding, I want to see dual shielding. Both are equally unfeasible for the same reasons, the inclusion of one with some manner of bonus should justify the inclusion of the other.

 

As an example of an empty second hand style? Or were you referring to something else. Because I'm pretty sure the name synonymous for two weapon fighting probably related to that in some way, and any google searches I find are showing some single weapon techniques but also wood prints with bucklers and parrying daggers for that style.

Fencing is a bad example anyway if you're looking for a fighting style that doesn't use a second weapon. Mostly fencing was not done on the battlefield, so it was done by people around town in duels, and they'd carry bucklers, daggers, or use their cloaks as a type of shield. But the point is, when ever possible, they used their off hand with something.

Can you site a real world example of a 20 pound maul? If you're wielding something much past 5 lbs, you're probably doing it with two hands, which creates a lever like position for you to parry actually quite easily. Let the swing get caught in between your grip and instead of blocking roll it over and around.

So when you say:

I have to ask how you think two weapons is out of line, but a sword and shield isn't? Not to mention posts I agree that many games give it far too much advantage (you're not getting an extra swing for every round of attacking) but you are increasing your defense and creating more opportunities for a follow up attack. It's just that in the grand scheme of things a shield is far more effective.

But if the option is sword and nothing, or sword and off hand weapon, it's a no brainier. You put a weapon in your second hand. Even if you just have it for emergencies. You can focus completely on your main weapon, but having that opportunity to attack from another angle is the obvious choice.

 

At this point you are arguing history with me, and doing so "unarmed". I don't intend to rehash all the points raised on this topic, I've already referred to them and don't plan to fight it out in a video game forum. Research your history well before you site it as an example that someone else's version is wrong, or all you really have to say is "I don't believe you."

I've wielded a 20 lb maul. Personally. It is a two handed weapon. You would NOT be able to parry so much as one swing from me via that maul with a main gauche. And if you did something complicated and rolled away, that's called a DODGE.

 

The usual design for dual wielding is improved offense and damage at the cost of defense and usually at some other cost as well.. like accuracy. I suppose you could make the argument that it's because the off-hand isn't as effective and your attention is split differently. It is a little harder to defend against if you're standing in one spot.. which is normally what game characters do in combat. I suppose I'm ok with going this route. No particular weapon combo should be unbalanced to give a clear universal advantage over another.

I've seen dual buckler before. But doing two shields is about as useful as trying to dual wield two handed weapons. They're just too big and would get in each other's way. It's a pain enough as it is when you need your weapon to cross your shield. I suppose that's one of the main reasons I prefer going dual. Shields feel restricting to me.

 

Nah, like I said, I'll build for heavy armor, shield bash, shield charge, spike my shields, and wear my opponent down with a little agressive defense.

 

I can only conclude that either your last name is Schwarzenegger or maybe that you're a ring wraith? I've played with a rapier that was about 1 lb heavier than it should have been for awhile longer than I should have.. darn thing shredded my arm. I couldn't pick up my sword again for 6 months.. and my (new) rapier for 3 months after that.. (or was it 4 and 6 months?). I can't imagine anyone swinging a 20 pound anything around on a real battlefield without causing personal injury. Ok granted there are ways to do it properly I'm sure but still.. 20 lbs seems entirely unrealistic for practical use.. and by that I mean more than 5 minutes of fighting time.

 

Personally I like Skyrim's approach. Put whatever you want into either hand.. and control each hand separately. So by that if you really wanted two shields you could..

 

Nevermind, I misread that. I read it as you can't parry WITH a maul, not parry a maul. I actually made the point earlier about that very thing.

That said, if you'd read what I said, you would have noticed that I qualified something that heavy as being two handed, which should have been a clue that I was misreading what you said. Also, that I describe how to block WITH it, instead of blocking it, would also be a clue.

As for flourentine fighting... And I'm not arguing history with you, I'm asking for a source to back up your claim. You're saying "Flourentine Fencing" is about fighting with one weapon and not using another. I'm not seeing that borne out anywhere, but would be interested in seeing where you got that from. If you can't give me that, then I'm not the one unarmed. I'd be happy to learn something new, but as it stands now the evidence makes your claim hard to accept on face value.

So, maybe, just maybe, take some of the aggression at me down a notch.

 

Considering that it is you, Freeman, coming to me, I'd say I am incapable of agression on this point. What you are feeling is defensiveness, which I will plead guilty to. If you step off, I'll stop having to defend myself. If you want history lessons, go look for history teachers. Which is definitely something I am not.

I will accept your veiled apology concerning the misunderstandings, but consider this: Is it really MY responsibility to catch the fact that you've misunderstood and reinterpret your statement?

@Bowen Bloodgood You're partly right, a 20 lb maul is stupid hard to swing back and forth. I imagine if I'd run around waving it all day I'd have torn up my chest pretty good. There is a reason we don't see armies fielded all using mauls, as we do with swords, crossbows, spears, etc. In my opinion, it's more of a prestige weapon, much like a flamberge, but if you've got one guy with the maul moving with a pack of more defensively armed allies, when they fetch up on opposition he can, with one swing, remove an opponent. And then he can do it again. Each swing frees up an ally from the melee. When the enemy cannot parry, it doesn't take many swings to be effective. As for the weight, I swear to you the damn thing was weighed before use. The head was 20 lbs. It felt like 20 lbs. It was EFFING heavy. Which is why I brought it up as the kind of thing you could not POSSIBLY parry with a main gauche.