|
A short-, bastard- or longs-word has a VERY different balance than a katana. The pommel acts as a counterweight to the blade and the center of gravity should rest just a bit above the hilt. A well-made sword should handle nicely if it is not too heavy. It would be easier to dual wield a single-handed sword because of this. The katana has a funny balance, but a long handle. If you grab the bottom of the hilt with your off hand, it can change direction very fast and can be aimed very precisely. You do not always have your off hand on the katana, but it helps if it is free.
Back when I was younger I was in the society for creative anachronism (SCA). They do a lot of re-creation heavy armor and weapon fighting, both one-on-one sparring and mass melee. Two-sword is a legitimate fighting style, though it differs from the D&D rules. Both blades are used in unison as a team. Parrying for instance is done with both weapons. Having two swords gives you opponent more things to worry about and makes it easier to feint. I never much cared for the style (I preferred pole-arms myself) and found it lacking. At the time I was in the SCA, about 90% of the REALLY good fighters used sword and shield and were almost impossible to hit. This may have changed over the years as the two sword styles may have improved. Perhaps someone with more recent experience could shed some light here.
I think dual wield is too powerful in the game. Perhaps it should only add attacks from the off hand at 1 / 2 the rate of the main hand. In PnP, each proficiency in sword and shield style improved AC by one (grand master=+5 bonus).
|