2H swords useless in PoTD after patch?

[AndreaColombo]

So, the DW bonus is also gone?

 

Wow. People just really love idle animations these days.

[heldred]

Not that anyone asked, but I have a fresh cup of coffee in me and I was thinking...  The easiest fix is to assign a max Value for each weapon Class (1H and 2H weapons = Class)

 

Max value 2H = 50 (arbitrary number)

Max value 1H = 30 (arbitrary number)

This becomes the total value to assign any weapon (excluding enchants).

 

Next, assign a point range for each weapon in the following categories:

Damage: 1-30 pts

Armor Pen: 1-25 pts

Recovery: 1-20 pts

 

Next assign a Value range for each weapon Class (fixed by Devs, can't be changed once set). For example, a 2H weapon Class could be:

Damage: 5-61 damage

Armor Pen: 1-18 pen

Recover: 8-1 secs

 

Once you have a the formula, assign Points for a weapon Type (example: Greatsword) - This enables some variability, but everything is a somewhat linear tradeoff:

Damage Max = 25 (out of 30)

Armor Pen = 16 (out of 25)

Recovery Max = 9 (out of 20)

 

Now convert the value on a percent basis (example: Greatsword from above)  - Note: round down on Damage and Armor Pen, keep value on Recovery

Damage =  33-50  (note: formula for dmg range = Max Damage / 3)

Armor Pen = 11

Recovery = 4.4 secs (note: 1-X% = recovery)

 

Next, every weapon can assign a Miscellaneous Attribute to the weapon (random ideas, can be anything):

a) Improved Range (e.g., Pike, Spear)

b) Improved Penetration: -1 Armor Pen (e.g., Estoc, War Hammer)

c) Improved Defense: +7 Deflection (e.g., Hatchet, Quarterstaff)

d) Improved Reliability: -60% damage range (e.g., Mace, Club)

e) Improved Critical: +15% damage on crit (e.g., Greatsword, Axe)

 

Lastly, assign a Modal...

 

Final values for this Greatsword would become:

Damage =  33-50  

Armor Pen = -11

Recovery = 4.4 secs

Improved Critical = +15% on Crit

Modal: +20% damage, -10 ACC (suggestion only)

 

Now you can have weapon variety, even for the same weapon Type (think Greatsword Claymore vs. Greatsword Odachi), but some rationale for balance the players can appreciate or evaluate for efficiency.

 

Finally, for overall balancing, I would put a Global Hard Cap on: Number of Attacks, Damage, Penetration, and Recovery.  For example: 2H Weapon Damage Max = 120,  Two Weapon Number of Attacks Max = 6, etc. This way, you can Min/Max, without breaking the game, due to the impossibility of properly evaluating every combination.   If you don't like hard caps, install diminishing returns, but harder to calculate with order of operation on stacking effects, talents, abilities, etc.

 

Not that it really matters, but I was bored while eating breakfast...

[knownastherat]

That was some cup of coffee  

[dunehunter]

 

Next, every weapon can assign a Miscellaneous Attribute to the weapon (random ideas, can be anything):

a) Improved Range (e.g., Pike, Spear)

b) Improved Penetration: -1 Armor Pen (e.g., Estoc, War Hammer)

c) Improved Defense: +7 Deflection (e.g., Hatchet, Quarterstaff)

d) Improved Reliability: -60% damage range (e.g., Mace, Club)

e) Improved Critical: +15% damage on crit (e.g., Greatsword, Axe)

 

 

I like the idea of giving 2h weapons an extra attribute.

[Veolfen]

It feels great enjoying the warrior/fighter wielding a 2hander archetypes in rpgs, and playing at POE2 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Veolfen

[Ensign]

As painful as it might be to imagine this I would rather suffer a hit from two weapons being dual wielded than a hit by a two handed weapon in real life. It just feels like two handed should deal so much more pain...

We're pretty deep into fantasy tropes here. Dual wield...wasn't ever really a thing is battlefield combat. You never marched off for war with two axes in hand. A second weapon wasn't uncommon in situations where combatants were lightly or unarmored and carrying a shield was impractical - but even then the 2nd weapon was primarily a defensive weapon for blocks and parries with possible opportunistic use offensively.

 

But it's so rich in the fantasy literature at this point that it is expected and for some reason we can't escape the 'it makes you attack faster!' mechanical trap.

[Cottonmouth]

And for some reason, developers love to make it the unambiguously most powerful weapon style by far

[Loren Tyr]

Well, it looks cool. You see it in movies and tv shows all the time as well, makes characters look especially badass (same with ridiculously oversized and overweight two-handed weapons actually). In reality a dude with shield and spear would pretty much wipe the floor with them most of the time, but yeah... combat in fiction unfortunately has a fairly tenuous resemblance to reality. 

 

About great swords though, even though they're heavy-ish (around 3 kg), the weight is mostly at the hilt end so against heavy armour swinging it at people isn't really going to do much damage. Using it as essentially a spear or half-swording and going for a gap, that'd be the way to go. Or using it a big lever, getting them on the ground and stabbing them in the neck with a rondel dagger. I mean, if you're really intent on bludgeoning then reversing the sword and hitting them with the pommel or cross guard will do in a pinch, but it's not ideal. 

 

In any case the great swords in the game actually look more like longswords, which really weren't that heavy. The great swords (in modern terminology, ie. the Zweihänder and such) were typically longer than shown in the game, and had larger guards and often side rings and a set of lugs after the ricasso as well. They were also too large to put in a scabberd (and pretty much no sword was put in a scabberd on the back either, certainly not longswords). 

 

Oh well, my dream of an RPG with realistic weapon handling lives on...

Edited June 4, 2018 by Loren Tyr

[Veolfen]

Well, it looks cool. You see it in movies and tv shows all the time as well, makes characters look especially badass (same with ridiculously oversized and overweight two-handed weapons actually). In reality a dude with shield and spear would pretty much wipe the floor with them most of the time, but yeah... combat in fiction unfortunately has a fairly tenuous resemblance to reality. 

 

About great swords though, even though they're heavy-ish (around 3 kg), the weight is mostly at the hilt end so against heavy armour swinging it at people isn't really going to do much damage. Using it as essentially a spear or half-swording and going for a gap, that'd be the way to go. Or using it a big lever, getting them on the ground and stabbing them in the neck with a rondel dagger. I mean, if you're really intent on bludgeoning then reversing the sword and hitting them with the pommel or cross guard will do in a pinch, but it's not ideal. 

 

In any case the great swords in the game actually look more like longswords, which really weren't that heavy. The great swords (in modern terminology, ie. the Zweihänder and such) were typically longer than shown in the game, and had larger guards and often side rings and a set of lugs after the ricasso as well. They were also too large to put in a scabberd (and pretty much no sword was put in a scabberd on the back either, certainly not longswords). 

 

Oh well, my dream of an RPG with realistic weapon handling lives on...

 

Well, even tho the sword isn't the best against* armor, a fighter in armor with a two handed sword is still close to being one of the very best archetype for realistic melee fighting. Even tho the one with a spear will be better, and ultimatly, the fighter in armor + halberd should be the unbeatable beast (admitting equal skill at least between those fighters ofc )

 

But rpgs tend to make sword good at cutting armor, 2 handed longswords being heavy and slow (while it's actually faster and more nimble to use than a one handed sword, and also feels lighter since you use your two hands), and dual wielder being the best of dps and damages while it sucks in reality.

 

Also RPGs like leather armor too much (and btw they suck for sneaking !)

Edited June 4, 2018 by Veolfen

[Ganrich]

Yeah, I have never cared for Dual Wield once I got past my Drizzt phase 15 or more years ago.  I find it obnoxious that every game makes Duel Wield the end all be all of damage.  The argument I have seen is "well you have more weapons to hit more often."  Ok, but this two handed hammer will break your spine no matter what armor you are wearing...

 

I don't want it excluded, but this full/primary attack system really exacerbates an already imbalanced situation.  DW already gets an extra item with enchantments over 2 handed, and the fact that they swing faster and do nearly equal damage?  It is just stupid.  Toss in Full Attack abilities and you are off to the races.  Why use anything but DW with Kind Wayfarer or a Rogue?  The rogue buffs made it worse as well.  Now, not only do you get 2 swings with all your abilities in order to ensure that they land, but you also do 25% more damage on your off-hand weapon which the 2 handed wielder won't have.  This game is 100% skewed toward Dual Wield for damage, and it is going to take a lot of work to get anything else even remotely close to that efficiency.  Especially with things like Full attacks, double enchantments, and such a huge advantage in recovery given the slower pace of combat overall compared to PoE. 

The attack speed thing makes it better for anyone looking to occasionally cast a spell too.  This is because your recovery being lower will always be better vs anything 2 handed weapons bring to the table.  Tyranny made similar mistakes early on which is why early hybrid builds were punching wizards.  Because the recovery on fists were so good it benefited you to be able to cast more spells.  Surprised no one learned from that mistake. 

[Loren Tyr]

Well, even tho the sword isn't the best armor, a fighter in armor with a two handed sword is still close to being one of the very best archetype for realistic melee fighting. Even tho the one with a spear will be better, and ultimatly, the fighter in armor + halberd should be the unbeatable beast (admitting equal skill at least between those fighters ofc )

But rpgs tend to make sword good at cutting armor, 2 handed longswords being heavy and slow (while it's actually faster and more nimble to use than a one handed sword, and also feels lighter since you use your two hands), and dual wielder being the best of dps and damages while it sucks in reality.

 

Also RPGs like leather armor too much (and btw they suck for sneaking !)

 

 

Agreed. For plate armour against plate armour I'd probably prefer a pollaxe over a halberd (bit shorter and more wieldy, and hammer head is a bit more useful than an axe head), but definitely: plate + polearm is pretty much top dog in most match ups, until you start talking firearms or heavy crossbows (and even then, one on one, I'd probably back armour guy). 

 

I would argue that one-handed swords can definitely be faster, eg. a smallsword (completely different era obviously, but still). Then again, regardless of speed, in a duel the guy with the one-handed sword is quickly going to be comtemplating the value of reach. 

 

And very much with the leather armour; it's quite heavy as well.

[Loren Tyr]

Yeah, I have never cared for Dual Wield once I got past my Drizzt phase 15 or more years ago.  I find it obnoxious that every game makes Duel Wield the end all be all of damage.  The argument I have seen is "well you have more weapons to hit more often."  Ok, but this two handed hammer will break your spine no matter what armor you are wearing...

 

Can't make the hammer too heavy though (real warhammer heads, either one- or two-handed, aren't that large; around the size of a typical modern claw hammer I think). Not much point to them if they're too slow to actually hit anyone with, after all. Which of course does not make the whole "more weapons = hitting more often" any less ludicrous (mostly cause you really can't, to any effect). 

[Climhazzard]

Pretty sure leather armor is actually a fantasy trope as well.  Dual wielding equal length weapons actually as been a thing in history, it just wasn't very common.  Either harder to learn, or less effective, whatever.  I think we can take liberties with fantasy and assume it's equally effective, but in PoE and PoE 2 it's generally more effective.  Imo mostly due to the full attacks mechanic..  

 

Also apparently crippling strikes was buffed?  Were rogues UP or something?  I thought they were fine.

[Ganrich]

Pretty sure leather armor is actually a fantasy trope as well.  Dual wielding equal length weapons actually as been a thing in history, it just wasn't very common.  Either harder to learn, or less effective, whatever.  I think we can take liberties with fantasy and assume it's equally effective, but in PoE and PoE 2 it's generally more effective.  Imo mostly due to the full attacks mechanic..  

 

Also apparently crippling strikes was buffed?  Were rogues UP or something?  I thought they were fine.

 

No, they weren't UP and were probably one of the more balanced classes, but the perception of Rogues on the GD board (and elsewhere) wasn't positive.  So, they got boosted it seems.  It isn't just Crippling Strike either.  Almost every Rogue damage ability has +25% damage now, and I am pretty sure prior to 1.1 they didn't.  They just didn't have a truly broken build like Pally, Fighter, Chanter, Barb, and Monk.  So people complained.  That is my impression of it anyway. 

Yes, Leather armor wasn't much a thing.  It was too expensive to repair IIRC.  The most common were things like Ringmail where you could repair a few rings and fix it right up on the cheap. 

 

I don't think most people are advocating the removal of historically inaccurate weapons/armor, but that it is really lopsided toward the rule of cool atm. 

[Veolfen]

 

Well, even tho the sword isn't the best armor, a fighter in armor with a two handed sword is still close to being one of the very best archetype for realistic melee fighting. Even tho the one with a spear will be better, and ultimatly, the fighter in armor + halberd should be the unbeatable beast (admitting equal skill at least between those fighters ofc )

But rpgs tend to make sword good at cutting armor, 2 handed longswords being heavy and slow (while it's actually faster and more nimble to use than a one handed sword, and also feels lighter since you use your two hands), and dual wielder being the best of dps and damages while it sucks in reality.

 

Also RPGs like leather armor too much (and btw they suck for sneaking !)

 

 

Agreed. For plate armour against plate armour I'd probably prefer a pollaxe over a halberd (bit shorter and more wieldy, and hammer head is a bit more useful than an axe head), but definitely: plate + polearm is pretty much top dog in most match ups, until you start talking firearms or heavy crossbows (and even then, one on one, I'd probably back armour guy). 

 

I would argue that one-handed swords can definitely be faster, eg. a smallsword (completely different era obviously, but still). Then again, regardless of speed, in a duel the guy with the one-handed sword is quickly going to be comtemplating the value of reach. 

 

And very much with the leather armour; it's quite heavy as well.

 

Yeah i was thinking of the poleaxe when i said halberd. I tend to call those 2 weapons halberd in most of the cases

Edited June 4, 2018 by Veolfen

[Loren Tyr]

Leather armour was a thing actually. It gets quite tough if you cure it properly; in Africa in particular it was also use for shields. Processed this way it's nothing like the leather we're used to though. 

 

Studded leather on the other hand... that's very much a movie/fantasy trope (as is the idea of using torches in dungeons), presumably first devised by someone with a heavy metal fetish.

 

And indeed, there are some historical instances of dual wielding but they are quite rare (and essentially never seen in battle, shields are just sooooo much better). Mostly something like sword and dagger, or dual dagger, the main purpose of the off-hand weapon would be defense. Windmilling around in a flurry of cuts would get you killed quite quickly, as would trying to wield eg. two axes (hatchets would work though). I mean, a second weapon is better than nothing in most cases, but it really never was a recommend tactic. Hence why off-hand weapons were often knives or daggers; like swords, they're sidearms, so if you're just out and about that's likely what you'd have at hand. Hardly going to drag around a shield all day after all (though a buckler would work).

 

@Veolfen: very true. The terminology is quite arbitrary anyway, there's such a range of polearms (and swords, etc.) with such gradual differences, that it's often really hard to clearly distinguish the categories. And many of the names we use now, especially for swords, are a much later invention anyway (admittedly, the Romans did call their gladius a gladious, though :D). 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Loren Tyr

[Veolfen]

I don't really have a problem to distinguish both of them, i'm just too lazy to remember to say poleaxe and just go with halberd everywhere 

[Gromnir]

self appointed pundits identifying and arguing "reality" o' weapon and armour strengths and weaknesses in a thread 'bout game balance amuses us. 

 

continue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Effusion]

And indeed, there are some historical instances of dual wielding but they are quite rare (and essentially never seen in battle, shields are just sooooo much better). Mostly something like sword and dagger, or dual dagger, the main purpose of the off-hand weapon would be defense. Windmilling around in a flurry of cuts would get you killed quite quickly, as would trying to wield eg. two axes (hatchets would work though). I mean, a second weapon is better than nothing in most cases, but it really never was a recommend tactic. Hence why off-hand weapons were often knives or daggers; like swords, they're sidearms, so if you're just out and about that's likely what you'd have at hand. Hardly going to drag around a shield all day after all (though a buckler would work).

Parrying daggers (also capes and offhand gauntlets) weren't exactly rare afaik, but they were for dueling rather than warfare. They were (arguably) more effective than a buckler for that purpose because one can catch and control an enemy's blade rather than just deflect it.

[Ganrich]

 

Yeah, I have never cared for Dual Wield once I got past my Drizzt phase 15 or more years ago.  I find it obnoxious that every game makes Duel Wield the end all be all of damage.  The argument I have seen is "well you have more weapons to hit more often."  Ok, but this two handed hammer will break your spine no matter what armor you are wearing...

 

Can't make the hammer too heavy though (real warhammer heads, either one- or two-handed, aren't that large; around the size of a typical modern claw hammer I think). Not much point to them if they're too slow to actually hit anyone with, after all. Which of course does not make the whole "more weapons = hitting more often" any less ludicrous (mostly cause you really can't, to any effect). 

 

 

Oh, no doubt, but a fairly fit person (anybody wielding a two handed weapon would be in shape) could swing said hammer with enough force to break bone.  During the winter I will go outside and chop wood to save on power about 2 times a week for 30 mins to an hour.  The difference in my ability to swing that axe from early winter to late winter is night and day.  Both from an efficiency standpoint and from a endurance standpoint.  If I were to hit anything living during the late winter months... well, it would do a number on them.  Armor or no.  You just get more force from using two hands, but like I said... I am not arguing for two handers to replace dual wield or even one handed style.  I just want a remotely even playing field.  Not this skewed playing field where it seems like your options are dual wield, ranged, or tank with a shield. 

[dunehunter]

Baldurs gate series, icewind dale, old AD&D pc games seems to all favor dual wielding to some degree. Icewind dale 2 is okay with 2h weapons, but it’s because it caps the max attack to 5... so u cannot reach 6,7 attack with dual wielding.

[Skazz]

So, given that the 2H sword thing at the moment seems to be playing with various AoE effects, has anyone found some nice way to take advantage of Distraho's AoE Shaken component?

[Lokithecat]

I'm beginning to think that Full Attack has to go, entirely, until they can get some base balancing stuff fixed up.  Then add it back in to only some abilities.  If there was no Full Attack, the divide between 2h and DW would be less significant.

[ErlKing]

I'm beginning to think that Full Attack has to go, entirely, until they can get some base balancing stuff fixed up.  Then add it back in to only some abilities.  If there was no Full Attack, the divide between 2h and DW would be less significant.

Or Full Attack abilities should have recovery summed from main hand and offhand, because right now using cheap Full attack abilities is better than regular swings regardless of additional bonuses - two swings with recovery only from off-hand weapon.

[Loren Tyr]

Parrying daggers (also capes and offhand gauntlets) weren't exactly rare afaik, but they were for dueling rather than warfare. They were (arguably) more effective than a buckler for that purpose because one can catch and control an enemy's blade rather than just deflect it.

 

 

That, and also just assorted street combat of course. Cause mostly, having a second weapon tends to be better than having nothing (though using a free hand for grappling or grabbing an opponent's sword blade is definitely useful as well). Bucklers are still generally superior though (and indeed were used in duels as well) as those are better blocking and parrying, especially against heavier blades. They're just not usually to hand in daily life whereas knives and daggers would be, but they would generally be preferably if available.