Alljix

I agree that full attack is the problem but taking it away would just reverse things and make dual-wield even more weak (cuz they won't even have the backstab niche). The extra speed from dual-wield is negated by 2 handed's stronger base attack but same recovery; however, 2 handed will now do more damage per ability/resources, making dual-wield pointless. If you are just playing the damage game than one is always gonna be better if they are both just playing the same game, the better way would probably to give one style unique quirks, like sunder or aoe damage, etc. Penetration is not a bad idea cuz it's a bit more complex than just direct damage. Or make dual-wield incur a accuracy penalty, to reflect the fact that dual-wielding is hard to master and use properly. Then again, the same can be said of huge heavy bulky weapons, which is why neither is used all the much in actual wars and life and death combat, with pikes/spears being preferred in wars and lighter blades being preferred in duels. Yeah but their sheer weight should also make them hit and recover slower (with the slower swings making them less likely to hit), but they don't. Dual-wielding don't count, since that is a speed bonus associated with the fighting style, not the weapons. It doesn't recover faster, it actually makes your main hand recover slower cuz now it has to wait until the off-hand hits before it can hit again. Dual-wield attacks faster cuz you attack with main hand then off-hand, not because it makes main-hand faster. The reason why your off-hand can hit before someone who only has one axe can make 2 attacks is because of centrifugal force and because you can start the attack of your off-hand before your main-hand even finishes. Or you know, you can just attack with both of them at the same time. Weapons basically fall into penetration and speed categories with a bonus for each weapon category. High penetration/dual damage type like scepter or warhammer have a lower base damage. Low penetration/dual damage type have good base damage. Low penetration/single damage type have the best base damage. Imo the problem with two handed weapons isn't their penetration. It's full attacks, which favor dual wielding, and their recovery time, which make the character far less reactive than characters dual wielding. I was rather hoping to see many or most 1 resource full attacks nerfed to primary attacks for the sake of 2 handers (I'm sure much crying would ensue), but that hasn't happened. Perhaps obsidian actually think 2 handers are good right now, maybe they have other ideas and they just didn't implement them. Incidentally making full attacks into primary attacks would also buff single wielding and dual wielding a single ranged with a single melee. I agree that full attack is the problem but taking it away would just reverse things and make dual-wield even weaker (cuz they won't even have the backstab niche). The extra speed from dual-wield is negated by 2 handed's stronger attack but same recovery but 2 handed will do more damage per ability/resources, making dual-wield pointless. If you are just playing the damage game than one is always gonna be better if they are both just playing the same game, the better way would probably to give one style unique quriks, like sunder or aoe damage, etc. Penetration is not a bad idea cuz it's a bit more complex than just direct damage. Yeah but their sheer weight should also make them hit and recover slower, but they don't. Dual-wielding don't count, since that is a speed bonus associated with the fighting style, not the weapon. It doesn't recover, it actually makes your main hand axe recover slower cuz now it has to wait until the off-hand hits before it can hit again. Dual-wield attack faster cuz you attack with main hand then off-hand, not because it makes main-hand faster. The reason why your off-hand can hit before someone who only has one axe can make 2 attacks is because of centrifugal force and because you can start the attack of your off-hand before your main-hand even finishes, or you know, attack with both of them at the same time.

How about this: your character has learnt the truth behind the creation of, what the kith call, gods. Not believing in them would indeed be irrational, however are they really gods? What really sets them apart from simply being just another (admittedly extremely powerful) creature like the dragons and arch mages that already inhabit Eora. In particular there's really no reason your character needs to worship them, or even hold them in high regard. However just like any other powerful entity your character might want to temporarily ally himself with them, make use of their power while it serves his purposes. Well it depends on how you define "god," does it has\ve to fit the Abrahamic concept of God or is it just any being who's powers is far beyond the general human race? Or does it have to be a "creator god?" If so than many gods in myths would not qualify either. Personally, I would just define them as a powerful being that a large number of people worship and revere, anything else is WAY too subjective a definition. Interestingly, since there is actual proof that the gods exist in this game's world, it is possible to have a committed follower of a god who does not have any religious faith and is a skeptical empiricist. By this I mean that he knows the god exist and agrees with the general philosophy and goals of the god and the god's followers but will still doubt any claims or actions by that group/god if he finds them faulty or unsubstantiated. He does not get his morals and convictions primarily from the religion but he follows the religion because their philosophy aligns with his. I find it kinda funny that despite being the leader of the "rationalist movement," Iovara came off as being too religious thinking. She is obsessed with the nature and origins of the gods, and while such things are important, she seems TOO obsessed with it, and seem to have far less concerns about the actual consequences of following these gods or believing in their lies or believing in things with no rational basis. Seems like she was so religious that she felted absolutely devastated to learn that all those beliefs were just concocted lies and backlashed more out of a personal sense of betrayal than of advocacy of rationalism. Though there are certainly real life atheists who didn't come to their atheism through what they believe to be rational, skeptical, and objective inquiry, but more because they felt their religion failed them.