Is Dual Wielding Swords REALLY That Awkward?

i beat dark souls 3 dlcs with this character build

what about jump attack tho

wouldn't having 2 wield same sword, bring even better balance?

Merit if you train it :) Also good end note.

I feel like anyone who’s ever played with swords should know dual wielding is busted? My friends and I once tested sword and shield, longsword, spear and shield, and dual wield against each other, and dual wield won most of the time precisely because you can occupy the opponents weapon with one sword and strike with the other.

I personally I prefer 3 swords

Dual wielding bucklers you become invincible

While duel wielding potentially doubles melee damage output, it prevents any kind of blocking
- Skyrim loading screen

Slashing + thrusting sword, or Warhammer + thrusting sword.

When it comes down to it. Isn't a sheild just the better alternative.

In general different weapons have strengths. So if you are going to dual weild, you might as well do it in a manner that gives access to more of these. Parrying daggers are great because in close it is a dagger. Sword and axe is good because hooking is great, and if you want to brute force armour it's better, particularly with a spike. Two swords is not bad. Probably better than 1 sword (if trained, and it's not too inconvenient). You just get more versatility with a mismatch.

Dual wielding is even more awesome when you have a magical 600lb black panther from the astral plane to help you and you're a drow named Drizzt Do'Urden...

It seems that 99 times out of 100 a shield, from a Roman Square Shield to a small buckler or anything in between, gives you much more utility and far less limitations than trying to use an offhand weapon. And in the rare and unique circumstances where an offhand weapon would give you an advantage it also seems that 9 times out of 10 a good dagger would be much more useful than a full length sword.

Perhaps this is why throughout history nearly everyone was using sword and shield or two handed weapon, and aside from some very obscure Japanese fighting styles or some European fencing manuals - which may or may not have any battlefield applicability - men fighting with two weapons invariably had some kind of poinyard or "sword breaker" or something in their off hand?

Dual wielding swords in my opinion is good only when you treat the second sword as an “expert mode” buckler. That being said, you would probably be better off just having a shield or buckler instead of another sword. Or a sword and a spear. I think dual wielding is more applicable when you are using two different weapon types. Like axe/mace, axe/sword, mace/sword… etc…. But even that is situational. Probably best to use a dedicated defense implement in your non-dominant hand if you aren’t two-handing.

One part I felt was extremely missing was proper blocks when doing a duel weapon vs. a person using two hands. On the majority of the blocks you showed, the person would have cut through since the force wasn't there to stop it. A more proper technique would be a counter-swing or cross-hold position where you allow the second sword to support the first, which then allows for a jab or side step in a return to form. I know those are more advanced, but if I'm the guy with 2 hands and your single handing I am going for my vertical and horizontal swings since depending on how quickly you can block I will always see you give 1-3 inches, 5 if you failed at timing.

You just need two-weapon fighting and you're set.

Because shields exist.

Sir Arthur Dayne has joined the chat😂

Makes me think of DnD.
If i recall correctly, even for the classes that get a second or third attack, you do not get the equivalent number of off-hand strikes, you get 1 because you have 1 bonus action.
And if you are trained (i.e. have the "dual wielder feat") you get +1 armor-class.

I've found dual-wielding to be pretty easy to come to grips with. Personally, I prefer a slightly shorter offhand weapon, mostly to avoid the dreaded "scissor cut" scenario, but otherwise parrying with your main hand and counter attacking with the offhand is quite effective.

I have experience fighting with dual swords and I would say that it is only better than using a shield if you fighting multiple opponents that are less experienced than you. But is a really no no against a spear.

The problem with dual weilding is power, however you get, extra attacks and blocks/parry as a pro.

You should start exercising man. I thought I had a bad aspect ratio.

I have no idea how to actually fight with swords, but I'm sceptical towards two weapon fighting for the simple reason that it is so uncommon in history. The people that lived in the past weren't stupid, they 100% knew that it was possible to hold a weapon in both hands, but yet it didn't really catch on. I know there are historical fighting techniques that involve two weapons fighting but it's a handful of rare exceptions while probably 95-99% of combat techniques involve just one weapon

can you defend with the rapier on the left and strike with the falchion with the right?

Skallagrim has been on that mutton and mead diet

set strength scaling on swords and unga bunga your enemies, no need for dexterity

Double wielding is displayed way differently in games, anime and other stuff in that sort, that's why people are blinded by the fact that double wield is actually really scary (i was once like that too but since im a melee weapon fan i did my research), this video should be more popular in my opinion, to show game and anime fans that double wielding is something.

hmm... what about short dual spears? If the shield analogy is correct, then having a second spear instead of a shield makes sense.
And again, you can always throw a second spear)

How long are those swords? One of them looks about 2 1/2 ft while the other looks about 3. Isn't a typical longsword about 37-58 inches long, hilt included? The problem I would expect would be control with using one hand on something so long. Dual wielding battleaxes is some movie or fantasy game BS because of how top heavy it is the longer the weapon is. A smaller axe that is 2 1/2 ft wouldn't be as big a problem. I can dual wield two short 2 1/2ftb with great control with no problem in my old sparring classes. When you start getting 3ft, the length gets a little awkward. Now I feel like I might have a problem if someone gets close and I can feel some of the weight difference.

The whole point of dual wielding is to enable footwork and stance switching. You can be dangerous from every stance compared to a sword and shield where your shield is only useful with the lead leg. So your footwork becomes more fluid and your offense more potent when you can switch stance mid-attack and vary the angles.

edgy sh!tstains who like dual wielding are absolute cringe

fucking thank you skall! It is like everyone only looks at fantasy tropes rather than actually thinking about how it could be useful.

i see big chungus found swords.

dont know. i feel like holding a sword onehanded is fine if it is not too heavy, yes. but it has to be even lighter for your left hand (or if you are left handed the right hand) since, well, it's weaker. i would ASUME that that is why people would prefer a parrying dagger for their off-hand. also, if you focus on your main hand for offensive manouvers and use the off hand more for defense, i would argue that you would want it to be lighter so you can move it quickly, and if you wanna defend yourself - so the enemies weapon comes to you - you dont really need the reach.

so yes, if you didn't have something else laying arround near you on battlefield, yeah, maybe 2 swords are better than one, but i think one sword and a parrying dagger are ... more optimal.

I like this interpretation
We have a tendency to try to use things in a way we assume it should be done and discredit it if that doesn't work how we immediately imagine

Its gonna be murderous in a fight if u know how to use both hands.

The greatest sword fighter in japan is a dual weilder

Dual Wield Guts sword (DragonSlyer)

If you are using a light one-handed sword against an unarmored opponent, you want to turn one shoulder towards your opponent to extend your reach, and then the other shoulder is too far away.
On the other hand, if your opponent is sufficiently armored, you would want a heavier sword that is better wielded two-handed. Then, if you wield a sword with one hand, an opponent that wields their sword with two hands will push your sword aside. Wielding two swords only works if you use both of them aggressively.

Dual swords are the basis for training of Krabi Krabong. if you are interested using double swords (thai sword dance)

Doing some Larp soon.
No thrust allowed . I'm looking for tips against people dual wielding..

10 minute video to show that dual wielding is possible.
Now imagine a dude in antiquity that literally had 20 years of practice with it, while being taught by families with generational skill in this form stretching back a thousand years or more.
Clearly anything is possible given enough training.

The problem with dual wielding two swords is not that it is useless, but that there are better options. Having a shield instead of a second sword is probably the better option in 99% of the time, and at the same time, a shield is most likely cheaper than a second sword. If you do not need a shield because you have good armour, you would probably like to have a bigger two-handed weapon with more reach than a second sword. However, if you just happened to have a second weapon, having something in your off-hand is surely better than an empty hand.