Dual wielding

Legault · Post by **Legault** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 1:20 pm

I started a new wizard char and I was wondering if he could dual wield.

Elwin · Post by **Elwin** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:41 pm

No, wizard classes cannot dual wield. It doesn't make much sense. They need hand free to cast.

Elandril · Post by **Elandril** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:13 am

Actually unless i'm mistaken if you took the still spell feat you wouldn't need any hands to cast, and then you could use both hands.

Tandria · Post by **Tandria** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:16 am

Although that IS true, wizards really don't have any need to dual wield. They tend to rely on their spells far moreso than their skills in combat.

Beshaba · Post by **Beshaba** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:03 pm

That is actually only partially true. If the spell requires a spell componant, you do need a hand free to cast it, even with still spell.

Gwain · Post by **Gwain** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:32 pm

I think especially for wizards its good to have a hand free, though its not often seen and I don't know if it can be applied to the game itself, the wielding of magic is like the wielding of a weapon, the hands guide it and the mind shapes it into a weapon. Some instances in rp its very easy to stop a magic user by gagging them or tieing their hands together.

Alvinah · Post by **Alvinah** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:00 pm

Beshaba wrote:That is actually only partially true. If the spell requires a spell componant, you do need a hand free to cast it, even with still spell.

Just wondering... Will the spell pouches work in this instance? Silly question, but just wanna make sure.

-Me

Mele · Post by **Mele** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:15 pm

Spell pouches are coded so you do not need to remove the component every single cast. However, it is assumed to cast a spell you are indeed removing the components as you need them, leaving you needing altleast one free hand. :)

~Danica

Elwin · Post by **Elwin** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:29 pm

Reguardless if they need a free hand or not, they are not a warrior class. They rely on yhier spells to help them. That is the main reason why they do not dual-wield.

Mele · Post by **Mele** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:55 pm

That is correct. However people asked questions about the free hands and deserve answers as well.

Wizards are not the type for melee battle, hence the lack of need for dual wielding.

~Danica

Telk · Post by **Telk** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:16 am

It wouldn't make much sense to have a wizard able to dual wield. The wizard would be to involved with studies of his spells to spend time to learn dual wield, I also believe that is the reason that wizards cannot learn second attack etc. You can also type skills in game to get a list of all the available skills for the character that you are currently on.

Legault · Post by **Legault** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:40 pm

*Sigh* Alright, I just tought that a whip and dagger backed up by fireballs would be a kick-butt combo

Natasha · Post by **Natasha** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:41 am

Use a whip-dagger

Lathander · Post by **Lathander** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:05 am

Try to look at it this way Legault, should fighters who can dual wield a whip and dagger get to cast fireballs? That would be a kick-butt combo too. Should backstabbing thieves get to wield whips and daggers, dual-backstab AND cast fireballs? At what point do the classes no longer become different and we end up with a mud full of PCs who all have the same skills? The balance has been carefully worked out by the game administrators and it is well done.

Legault · Post by **Legault** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:00 am

Hmmmm...... Good point. But then again, you shoudl make us all be able to dual wield daggers and whips, and cast fireball! That would be a super- kick-butt Combo!!!!!!!!!

Dual wielding

Dual wielding

Actually..