Dual Wielding logic and Swashbucklers

[Pixie, the Leng Queen]

Ok so this is kind of a rant on how D&D dual wielding makes no sense at all... like its not at all how dual wielding work...

For reference:

I have provided some good education for yous all.

So with this in mind, it seems to me that dual wielding shouldnt be about "herrr derr I gots more weapons so I hits more!!!" But should actually be "I have a second weapon so i can control you more and get in". I feel like this would be much better represented with a shield bonus while dual wielding and eventually a parry+reposte mechanic when fighting defensively (for S&B fighters, this shield bonus would have an exception to the normal stacking rules that allows this bonus to stack on top of the shield bonus from shield itself).

Now about that Parry+reposte mechanic... the fact that swashbucklers are NOT supposed to dual wield makes NO SENSE.AT ALL. The classic way to wield a rapier is WITH THE MAIN GAUCHE IN YOUR OFF HAND. Rapiers were meant to be paired with a dagger so that you CAN easily block are counter. The Parry+reposte you see in fencing and such only works because the other blade is also light. It works by pushing/redirecting it out the way just enough so it barely misses you and lunging out all in a fluid movement (i have a few years fencing experience lol). With a larger sword, you need to exert more force on the keeping the blade stiff on the block and that makes it harder to fluidly get in as well. Now this is not a problem if you can block with your main gauche and.get in with your rapier. So single handed block+reposte on anythong other than a piercing or light weapon makes little sense...

What do you guys think?

Does PF TWF makes sense or no, and do you think it needs an overhaul or no?

[Pixie, the Leng Queen]

Oh and on a side note, those guys have a lot.of very cool information and demonstrations on how REAL swordfighting is and is not. So if you would like to get edumacated check them out. Its quite enlightening

[Blymurkla]

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Does PF TWF makes sense or no, and do you think it needs an overhaul or no?

Pathfinder does not make sense. Period. Two-handed weapons, for example, should not deal extra damage but be easier to land hits with. But Pathfinder doesn't have to make sense, it isn't that kind of game.

Although, regarding the Swashbuckler, I completely agree with you. I can not understand that class.

[Azten]

"Pointy end goes in the other guy." :)

[Solidchaos085]

Azten wrote:

"Pointy end goes in the other guy." :)

"What's to understand about swish swish stab? It's a f+$%ing sword, dude. Not a fighter jet."

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE

Another perspective on dual wielding, by ScholaGladiatoria. Most of what you see in Pathfinder would easily qualify as what he refers to as one on one fighting, as opposed to battlefield fighting, or mass combat.