Hail.

Recently I came across a question I failed to clearify, and as it turned out later, I am not alone.

Here it is: does DUAL WIELD skill affect number of possible attacks for barehand fighting with both hands free (HAND TO HAND)? For assassins in particular? For masters in UNARMED DEFENSE in particular? Does DUAL WIELD skill affect number of BACKFIST attacks when both hands are free?

These questions were derived by my vain attempt to clearify possible offensive tactics of an assassin combat. I used newbie channel to ask: "If having both hands free makes me, an assassin, more offensive?". I did not try to acknowledge just what is generally better. I just need to know if I am going to inflict more damage having both hands free. There were no clear answers. Help on UNARMED DEFENSE says I get some effect vs unskilled foes...that is too foggy. What abount DUAL WIELD?

Sincerely yours,
Eugene

P.S. I have spent hours asking these questions on newbie channel. Many attempts to answer, no answers. Even an immortal submitted that this is a question for consideration. Hereby I ask you to answer only if you really got something to say.

Even when barehanded, UNLESS their offhand claw is filled with something, like an orb or shield. (yes if it's a weapon and you get disarmed, they'll still dual wield it.)

That being said, only felar assassins get the potential to do a full six attacks (i.e. second and third attack practiced) other assassins only get three attacks while completely barehanded.

Being barehanded makes you slightly harder to parry against foes who are also missing their primary wield. A hand to hand specced warrior with ironhands will have a greater bonus than you have with unarmed defense (and thus will negate an assassin's bonus if you fight one) but it's a similar bonus.

Any race but felar is better off with a weapon in the primary, or dual wielding. You don't attack with your offhand (unless you're felar) ever. If your offhand is free you can use Backfist, but your primary hand shouldn't matter for Backfist. Felars being the exception to this rule, can both dual wield claws AND get backfist attacks, can mix it up when needed with better results than non-felar assassins as far as potential number of attacks goes, especially if you've done some fighting against mobs while barehanded.

Anything beyond that is tactics on your part. Felars pay for the dual wield bonus stat and vulnerability wise as part of game balance. On the other hand, you can use staffs, spears and even two handed swords and still get claw attacks. (Just not backfist if you're using two hands to hold your weapon.)

All barehanded assassins get "dual wield" with hands empty. At least after unarmed defense comes into play.

I don't have access to the code, but this is based on my experience with assassins.

Here it is: does DUAL WIELD skill affect number of possible attacks for barehand fighting with both hands free (HAND TO HAND)?

No. For assassins, the dual wield skill only affects your ability to hit / do damage when you've got a weapon in each hand.

For assassins in particular? For masters in UNARMED DEFENSE in particular?

Unarmed defense affects how well you parry people attacking you with weapons when you're unarmed (i.e., no weapons in hand). It will have some small impact on your attacks when fighting someone who isn't as skilled at hand to hand combat as you are. Dual wield doesn't enter into this equation.

Does DUAL WIELD skill affect number of BACKFIST attacks when both hands are free?

No. Backfist is separate. And highly mysterious.

These questions were derived by my vain attempt to clearify possible offensive tactics of an assassin combat. I used newbie channel to ask: "If having both hands free makes me, an assassin, more offensive?".

Depending on the situation, yes. Will you be more offensive if you have both hands free than if you have one hand free and a shield in the other? Yes. Will you be more offensive if you have have both hands free than if you are dual wielding swords? Probably not, though you'll be more effective at backfist. At times this is good, at other times, probably not so much.

Underlying reason for unarmed defense for assassins is to give them a slight edge (or at least not as much of a handicap) when they are disarmed, when they choose to assassinate bare-handed (which, rumor has it, is more effective against certain foes) or when they choose to utilize other skills that require them to have an empty hand (tigerclaw, for example).

I did not try to acknowledge just what is generally better. I just need to know if I am going to inflict more damage having both hands free. There were no clear answers. Help on UNARMED DEFENSE says I get some effect vs unskilled foes...that is too foggy. What abount DUAL WIELD?

Think about it this way: when fighting an opponent, you generally want to utilize a weapon that they are vulnerable to. This might mean a weapon they have no knowledge of (a polearm vs. a thief, for example), a weapon that has a material that inflicts more harm (iron vs. elf) or a weapon that has an attack type that inflicts more harm (drowning attack vs. dwarf). If you are fighting a human necromancer, would you want to use swords or daggers (weapons they are familiar with), or use hand to hand (something most mages rarely get up above 80%)? Not saying there's a right answer to that question, because it will vary with situation, but with your unarmed defense and your hand to hand skills, you at least have a good chance of using either option and seeing which works best for you.

P.S. I have spent hours asking these questions on newbie channel. Many attempts to answer, no answers. Even an immortal submitted that this is a question for consideration. Hereby I ask you to answer only if you really got something to say.

Probably an easier question to answer via this method. And Imms don't always know the answers to all the questions asked on the newbie channel (I might even have gotten the above wrong - see my first sentence), but I'm sure I didn't steer you very far in the wrong direction.

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

Hail

>For assassins, the dual wield skill only affects your
>ability to hit / do damage when you've got a weapon in each
>hand.

A small correction. Up to my observation dual wield skill affects my fighting even if I have only one weapon, and it is in off-hand (for example, after I get disarmed and punch with my prime hand, I still hit with my offhand weapon).

>Hail.
>
>Recently I came across a question I failed to clearify, and as
>it turned out later, I am not alone.
>
>Here it is: does DUAL WIELD skill affect number of possible
>attacks for barehand fighting with both hands free (HAND TO
>HAND)? For assassins in particular?

Yes, you will hit more with two hands free then with one hand free and using a shield. But not necessarily hit more overall then with say a sword and one bare hand.

> For masters in UNARMED DEFENSE in particular?

From the helpfile, you'll have a "slight advantage in landing
punches against less skilled foes", but I don't think this means "extra" hits, per se. You might get more mileage out of the punches you do throw though.

> Does DUAL WIELD skill affect number of
>BACKFIST attacks when both hands are free?

Well, dual wield is sort of a pre-requisite for backfist, so not really sure what you're asking. Do you get more backfists when two hands are free then when only your offhand is free? I haven't noticed any difference-- but backfist is so random in general, it'shard to tell. I'm inclined to believe backfist works only on offhand, but again, that's just my belief after hours of using it. Anyone is welcome to correct me.

>
>These questions were derived by my vain attempt to clearify
>possible offensive tactics of an assassin combat. I used
>newbie channel to ask: "If having both hands free makes me, an
>assassin, more offensive?". I did not try to acknowledge just
>what is generally better. I just need to know if I am going to
>inflict more damage having both hands free. There were no
>clear answers.

There are no clear answers. Not to such vague questions. You might find hands to be more offensive in some scenarios and less in others. Maybe be more specific what you mean...

> Help on UNARMED DEFENSE says I get some effect
>vs unskilled foes...that is too foggy. What abount DUAL
>WIELD?

The helpfile on unarmed defense: "..landing punches against less skilled foes, assuming both hands are bare." Your hands are both free (dual wielding hands), and your opponent is not a master of hand to hand. I'd interpret this to mean your punches might be slightly more difficult to parry/dodge/whatever. Or something of that nature.

>
>Sincerely yours,
>Eugene
>
>P.S. I have spent hours asking these questions on newbie
>channel. Many attempts to answer, no answers. Even an immortal
>submitted that this is a question for consideration. Hereby I
>ask you to answer only if you really got something to say.

Again, I think you are wording your questions funny-- it's tough to tell exactly what you're asking. Maybe try restating them?

But hope some of that helps-- sometimes though, it's fun to just play around with the skills on mobs and see what works for you.

Cheers.

Hello,

First of all, thank you for the answer!. Tt is quite informative and answers most of my questions. I am really sorry for their vagueness. Buy hey, is not this the reason we are not living in space already, misunderstanding each other?! So, I appreciate your efforts in getting my point.

Now to the unclarified part.

>>These questions were derived by my vain attempt to clearify
>>possible offensive tactics of an assassin combat. I used
>>newbie channel to ask: "If having both hands free makes me, an
>>assassin, more offensive?". I did not try to acknowledge just
>>what is generally better. I just need to know if I am going to
>>inflict more damage having both hands free. There were no
>>clear answers.

>There are no clear answers. Not to such vague questions. You might >find hands to be more offensive in some scenarios and less in >others. Maybe be more specific what you mean...

What is not clear? I have got two defined situations to compare. Me and THE foe. First case, I fight it wearing a shield and wielding my bare hand. Second, I fight it with both hands free. THE same foe, the same moment, the same everything. Am I more offensive in the second case? As far as I understood from your answers I am going to hit more often in the second case.

Mind you, I do not take other types of weapons into consideration now. I understand that hands are good when they are good. That is not the point of my interest.

I just try to understand specifics in how DUAL WIELD affects HAND TO HAND combat and effectiveness of related skills.

What is all my darn-long speach about? I tell you what! Do I?! Nah...I forgot what I was going to say. *grin*

>What is not clear? I have got two defined situations to
>compare. Me and THE foe. First case, I fight it wearing a
>shield and wielding my bare hand. Second, I fight it with both
>hands free. THE same foe, the same moment, the same
>everything. Am I more offensive in the second case? As far as
>I understood from your answers I am going to hit more often in
>the second case.

Finer nuances of unarmed defense and backfist are the unclear parts, as I have heard that they are more effective if you are not wearing a shield. H2H specialist warrior will dual wield his hands and is more offensive without shield. Assassin will not dual wield his hands as far as I know(but the unarmed skills will work better without shield. I think that the shield is still more effective means of defense). Felars will always dual wield their claws when wearing a main wield(but not a shield. I'm not sure about this when they are barehanded, though), including two-handed weapons.

>Mind you, I do not take other types of weapons into
>consideration now. I understand that hands are good when they
>are good. That is not the point of my interest.
>
>I just try to understand specifics in how DUAL WIELD affects
>HAND TO HAND combat and effectiveness of related skills.

It is rumoured that the related skills are more effective when you are not wearing a shield, but I don't know it for sure, check what the helpfiles say and go along with them. If you are not a felar and get extra damage for your h2h attacks, you are likely to be better off with a sword and shield or two swords(or sword and dagger).

Hi again!

>H2H specialist warrior will dual wield
>his hands and is more offensive without shield. Assassin will
>not dual wield his hands as far as I know.

Bah! That is what I fear. Remember what Dude said in the first comment?

>Yes, you will hit more with two hands free then with one hand free >and using a shield.

Charge you! Again I get contradicting answers. Arrrggghhh! *peer*

Sorry folks, happens to me once too often these days.

I was a felar and it seemed to work that way. Didn't know non-felars didn't dual wield hth. There ya go.

Sorry for the slight misinfo.