How practical or impractical is the use of sword and dagger?

Or you attack with whatever you have a good opportunity to attack with, without imposing artificial limits on yourself for no good reason.

But hey, that's if you're fighting to survive, and not just coming up with one sentence fighting styles to put in some fantasy book or game fluff snippet.

Its often the opposite.

Depends on the dagger you have available. A dedicated parrying dagger can catch swords very effectively.

>what is a main-gauche?

It does have some basis in reality en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger.

>the best way to dual-wield is one for attack, one for defense

That's more how it tends to end up. The enemy is probably some distance away from you, so you attack him with your long weapon. Incoming attacks on the other hand must get to you if they're to matter, so you can catch those with the shorter weapon.

But if the enemy does come closer, you can feel free to shank him with your dagger as well. Odds are your sword's tied up anyway at that point anyway, or he wouldn't have gotten past it into dagger range.

Do the sunglasses come standard?

I don't understand this growing peacekeeper fetish. She's the worst character

>How practical or impractical is the use of sword and dagger?

in what context?
in what era?

Renaissance style era? Yes
Viking? No.
Unarmoured? Yes.
Armoured? No.
Civilian conflict? Yes.
Battlefield? no.
1vs1, or close to that? Yes.
Mass combat? No

Using the dagger while unarmoured to set aside the other person's weapon is perfectly viable. Even using two swords in that context works, though the 2nd sword is usually less mobile and not used to attack most of the time.
Same techniques could be applied to medieval 1h swords, or even to messers, falchions etc - it would not solely apply to the rapier.
Where it doesnt work is in battle, where combat is all around, when you're armoured (better to go for a weapon with both hands - faster, more control, harder strikes), or where the others have larger shields that are more effective.

>Would you date a peacekeeper?
no idea. I'm sure there's probably a www.dateaunitednationsbluehelmet.com site for lonely peacekeepers you could try, OP.

Couldn't tell you, but I think it makes for a good look.

No. You can tell because their glasses aren't standardized.

Sunglasses are just useful.

Dual wielding generally is incredibly impractical.

But, Sword and Sword Breaker is a great combo.

Sword/Board is a better one though.

In single combat? Pretty useful, a parrying dagger was used historically and offers defensive and offensive options especially if your opponent is in full plate.

In a battle line in a war? Yeah its pretty fucking useless. I would probably give peacekeepers a pass because the regular mooks they can hack through pose so little threat that they really are only concerned with single combat.

I am on confused on if yes is practical or impractical

For Honor.

They're spies/assassins for the Knights.

Yes is clearly for practical

>How practical or impractical is the use of sword and dagger?
Use of a main gauche was standard practice during the renaissance.

>Would you date a peacekeeper?
Depends. If it's one of those UN deployed cunts, she's probably a "soldier" who got into the military purely by virtue of her gender and spends every night sucking the cocks of the real soldiers.

The fantasy wandering knight kind? Sure, ladyknights are my fetish.

Why is it impractical for Vikings?

Vikings who aren't raging homosexuals use a sword and shield, because a sword made of proper crucible steel is a superweapon in the hands of an experienced norse swordsman.

outta my way, best dagger coming through

It's apparently from some Ubisoft "historical" dark souls-esque game that hasn't been released yet or something - googled it, was kinda disappointed that "peacekeeper" didn't produce farscape stuff but was mostly just some MP4 knock off from Call of Duty and a few pics of a trio of a viking, a crusader and a samurai (none of them from the same century judging by their armor) doing Standard Game Cover Art Pose #3.

Dunno why it's being shilled on Veeky Forums tho.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=MwaUDkYvwHQ
New video game coming out. Peacekeeper is a class.

Very practical, BUT entirely restricted to duel situations.

Trying to fight in formations like this (Open battles) is downright suicide. It's been discussed that it has more benefits to defense than a buckler because you can propel the attacking weapon away with a flick of the wrist, while the buckler generally can "only" deflect the weapon. On top you still have a viable weapon that can harm your enemy while binding his weapon with your sword.

Having a large roundshield is probably more efficient because it allows you to protect yourself against missiles, however it is also more weight to carry.

The parry dagger was a real concept, a notable non-European example is the jitte. Overall though, this was mainly a dedicated dueling thing because it was pretty unwieldy.

Practical in 1 on 1 situations. And considering in For Honor the only soldiers that actually matter will fight you 1 on 1 90% of the time (and also that peacekeeper is an assassin, not a soldier), yeah, it's practical.

Also I would need more information about the particular interested peacekeeper before I make my decision. Though I main a knight so I guess that's already a step in the right direction.

>How practical or impractical is the use of sword and dagger?
If you're using the dagger for blocking or parrying then you might as well use a shield.
>Would you date a peacekeeper?
I'm not dating anyone based purely on what their job is.

Kind of, though the second one was pretty much used exclusively for blocking.

>Depending on their personality I would. I mean, this is assuming we find each other physically attractive.
Damn it man, why you being all reasonable and shit

A shield is is pretty much the best thing for staying alive in a fight, and vikings used shields a lot.

Civilians wouldn't carry a shield around because that would be stupid, but a rapier and dagger would weigh some 4-5 pounds combined and can be easily worn from the hip.

bucklers can also be used to protect your attacking hand though, while daggers cannot

in terms of practicality outside of combat, a dedicated parrying dagger is too specialized to be used for much, just as a buckler would also only be useful in combat.

and please don't bring up "axes are the ultimate weapon because muh utility"

>How practical or impractical is the use of sword and dagger?
Realistically its down to way to many variables and shit to even get a solid answere so I'm gonna go down by the most obvious ones.
Noble or artillery: Sure
Anyone else: No

For dating? I mean assasins in general are a bad idea, work to often get in the way of personal life. Give me a nice warden wifu.

He's asking one off topic question and opening with a question he thinks is on-topic to try and cover it up.

they do it in Filipino martial arts they do it in Spanish and French and Germanic sword work and eastern European styles as well.

>Renaissance style era? Yes
>Viking? No.
>Unarmoured? Yes.
>Armoured? No.
>Civilian conflict? Yes.
>Battlefield? no.
>1vs1, or close to that? Yes.
>Mass combat? No

>Source: Your ass

You're pretty much wrong on all accounts but alright

To be fair they are described duelists even in the little bits of lore we are given.

They "Keep the Peace" the same why a knife through the heart of a rival king does.

Of course it's practical an would give you an edge in some situations over other weapons. But only if you know how to fight with such and learning is rather difficult

for a duel, there are more ideal tool choices you could go with but a dagger/ longsword is not entirely unreasonable. It would be completely stupid if you took it into a massive battle, however.

Using a dagger can be meh with a shortsword, in this case you would use it for an occasional stab, although this it is not awfully effective.
It is meant to be used with a rapier, mostly against an opponent with another rapier or a similar weapon.
When paired with a rapier you use it as an additional blocking device, mostly when your main weapon is in a bind with your opponent's weapon.
No real point in using it outside of that. Unless you are superhumanly ambidextrous, and even than, why not add another sword instead of a dagger?

underrated post

parrying daggers are used instead of bucklers because a buckler is used to deflect, but a parrying dagger can be used to control and lock in your enemy's weapon. It does have a *much* higher skill ceiling though.
However, both of those are traditionally only ever used with much faster weapons, not at all what OP posted.

What OP posted is an edgy faggot.

Why the fuck there are studs on the sword?
>why not add another sword instead of a dagger?
Because it's harder to move two swords around without clashing them together. You lose some freedom of movement, but don't gain much in return.
IIRC Case of Rapiers was the only dual-wielding with two equal swords that actually was somewhat popular.

Inferior to the polearm or even sword and shield.

Probably not.

The whole point is that you have two lethal weapons with vastly different moves. You can parry or attack with either of them making it very hard for your opponent to defent against you. It's really bad for a real formation-ob-formation fightingh, though, but both fluff-wise and game-mechanics wise Peacekeeper is purpose-built to suck at anything but 1v1 anyway.

Point is Peacekeeper is not going to battle. She's an assassin, meant for sneaking for isolating and murdering enemy champions.

Yup.
Viking and Samurai female characters are more realistic, 'cause they're based on real historical examples of women soldiers. That's why both use pole-arms to compensate thier inferior strength and endurance and capialize on their smaller frames.

meanwhile peacekeeper that was pulled out of the authors arse meekes NO GODDAMN SENSE

What are some other off hand weapons that could give an advantage in combat?

I remember some user a long time ago listed off a dozen different places all over the world where dual wielding weapons had been a thing at one point or another, but I forgot most of them.

I do recall that in every instance but a few the off hand weapon was different from the main hand. it was always stuff like a main gauche, daggers for getting through gaps in armor, torches, pistols, etc.

It is the only common form of dual wielding weapons that don't involve a sidearm and shield that has existed across all martial cultures in the world.

Yeah it is practical. Not as practical as a shield or a buckler, but if you get pounced while walking from the King's banquet back to the inn you're staying in, you better pull out that dagger alongside your sword. Alternatively, you can use a coat or cloak as a shield too.

Sword and dagger is pretty practical, but not:
- on the battlefield
- in the hands of a skinny chick
It's perfectly good weapons for duels and street fighting, when wielded by highly trained men, though.

>What are some other off hand weapons that could give an advantage in combat?
lazer gun

I would TOTALLY sage this shitty thread for /v/edditors if you guys catch my meaning

It's not made by ubisoft?

>What are some other off hand weapons that could give an advantage in combat?

Boxing glove.

>How practical or impractical is the use of sword and dagger

As practical as IRL history tell, decently practical.

It was mostly for high pace combat, that was usually found on duel, infiltration and assassination due to how easily concealable it was. Better or worse than shield/buckler?, well depends on your fighting style really, practicallity is measured by skill, not math, so its different on each individuals.

>Would you date a peacekeeper?

Well, um, why not?

I think it's practical for an Assassin, as both a sword and a dagger would be easy enough to bring along if you needed to kill a noble, and good enough for dueling them and any guards.

The only weirdness comes up in the fact that the seem to be a pretty frontline class in game, taking place in sieges and the like. Which I suppose works if they're supposed to be some sapper who sneaks inside to murder those unaware, but it doesn't quite work as well when open battle is already out.

>Would you date a peacekeeper?
yes

The off hand dagger does mean that you could attack or defend with either hand. Very hard to predict against and if both hands attack you'll need to do something drastic.

I would debate some of this

>Viking? No.
Arguably yes if your not on the front line but really, it's a backup for loosing your shield.
>Armoured? No.
If you've got a good bollocks dagger you can go for the weakpoints, i.e. eyes, armpits, groin, back of the knee etc.

Shields are something of a game changer. If you can't afford proper iron or steel armor then you're only defense against arrows is a shield.

Generally speaking you'd be using the bollock while up close and wrestling, rather than an offhand. It's not worth losing the ability to use your main weapon two handed.