Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mageslayer" data-source="post: 2485163" data-attributes="member: 34824">Thanks for everyone's continued interest.In my art, two weapon fighting is learned in conjunction with single weapon fighting. They are of a piece. It is not actually very hard, and it is easier than a shield, because shields are heavier and less manueverable.&nbsp; The second weapon isn't a defensive tool.&nbsp; It is integral to the art of killing quickly and decisively.&nbsp; You never really see the dagger until it is between your ribs, or slicing through your wrist.If you know what your a doing, killing someone who only has one weapon becomes much easier, as does preventing yourself from being killed, than if you only had one weapon. As for the wakazashi, the author of the Book of Five Rings seems to agree with me on this.But again, many of you are missing the point. The point isn't to debate realism. Nor is the point to inject realism into a game that can't be real. The point is to add continual variety to the game, continual value and consequence to choices made, even choices in equipment. Some of us like that idea. Others do not.As for whether it should be a feat, I've already conceded the point that that would be a good idea. I just hadn't considered it before my first post. I like the idea of making it a progression, like you get with Point Blank Shot and the other feats that require it as a prerequisite. That would be good.In fact, designing a martial style based on feats seems to be partly the point of feats, at least where the fighter is concerned. That can lead to all kinds of things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mageslayer, post: 2485163, member: 34824"] Thanks for everyone's continued interest. In my art, two weapon fighting is learned in conjunction with single weapon fighting. They are of a piece. It is not actually very hard, and it is easier than a shield, because shields are heavier and less manueverable. The second weapon isn't a defensive tool. It is integral to the art of killing quickly and decisively. You never really see the dagger until it is between your ribs, or slicing through your wrist. If you know what your a doing, killing someone who only has one weapon becomes much easier, as does preventing yourself from being killed, than if you only had one weapon. As for the wakazashi, the author of the Book of Five Rings seems to agree with me on this. But again, many of you are missing the point. The point isn't to debate realism. Nor is the point to inject realism into a game that can't be real. The point is to add continual variety to the game, continual value and consequence to choices made, even choices in equipment. Some of us like that idea. Others do not. As for whether it should be a feat, I've already conceded the point that that would be a good idea. I just hadn't considered it before my first post. I like the idea of making it a progression, like you get with Point Blank Shot and the other feats that require it as a prerequisite. That would be good. In fact, designing a martial style based on feats seems to be partly the point of feats, at least where the fighter is concerned. That can lead to all kinds of things. [/QUOTE]

Verification