(Suggestion) Wielding one 1-hander as the go to style

[Jukkahvi]

Hey

 

Personally I'm tired of seeing dualwielding, or sword 'n' shield the normal choices for 1-handers.

 

I'd love to see wielding one 1-hander as the most common way for NPC's and PC's. Would add a lot more depth in combat. And believability. Make dualwielding possible but extremely hard to be good at (Need some born traits to excel at). Sword 'n' shield should be more common on organizised forces.

 

On the same vein. Spears. If there's two-handers, make most common form for it a spear. Seeing someone with a greatsword could be assossiated with wealth and statue. Gives little storylines for every battle.

 

PS. You guys rock!

[Jarmo]

Also, make spear usable (also) as a 1-handed weapon.

Because, spear and shield were the way most armies fought through the ages, only in D&D it's not done.

[cyberarmy]

I would like to see some swashbuckling justice, a "real" one handed style which we can use our empty hand for defense or dirty tactics.

And for dual wielding, its cool if you have a small/light weapon in offhand but duelwielding 2 longswords,warhammers not so much.

We could use some other off hand equipment, like focus, book for magi or whip/pistol/throwable weapons for thieves and fighters.

Shields also need to have more usage than just defending.

 

And yeah it always bugs me one of the most common weapon combination for ages is ignored commonly in D&Ds. Short spear&shield.

[Monte Carlo]

In my awesome homebrewed RPG (Fighting in Tunnels) the point is made that many RPG weapons would never make the adveturer's cut: polearms and longbows are too big. Crossbows are too slow. No, most dungeoneering would be done with daggers, short swords, hammers and axes. Cestus, brass knuckles, poison...

[IchigoRXC]

I would like to see the offhand free for such dirty tactics as pulling out a pistol at close range, but I would like the ability to have more than one pistol at the ready. If the pistols are going to be realistic and take a while to reload, I reckon my savvy mage hunter would have prepared a couple of weapons prior to a stand off.

[Infinitron]

Perhaps we should be able to dynamically switch bastard swords (or perhaps any sword) between 1 and 2-handed usage.

[ohmygodsquad]

I honestly wouldn't want a "go-to" style. Make all the styles viable for different reasons. What's important is balance. The reason so many people used dual wielding in BG2 is because it was just better most of the time. If the other styles were on par it wouldn't be a problem.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ohmygodsquad

[Tlantl]

I say give the P the option to fight this way if he wants, but let the rest of us do as we please. I would hate to have some arbitrary restriction on fighting styles just because some other body doesn't like them.

 

In TOEE I had a fighter rogue with great cleave who used a glaive, if she won initiative there could be several sneak attack-cleave attacks in a row, it was awesome.

[kenup]

What I would like to see is benefits from using only one handers, just like every other style has its own. For example holding a one-hander with both hands makes for more criticals/damage. Still not as much raw damage as a huge ass battleaxe or claymore, but more than a sword and shield style, which is a more defensive focus.

 

No go-to styles though, every style that can be implemented should be a viable, with it's own positives and negatives.

[NerdBoner]

one handed is my favorite style, followed by sword and dagger dual wield...i'm more of a finesse oriented fighter type so I never use shields as i think those things would hinder me more than help my in the wilderness, and i'm not the hulk so dual wielding 2 large weapons seems ridiculous.

[leshy]

Well 1-handed fighting is great idea, although pretty much all my characters dual-wield Two Worlds 2 had this mechanic in which you had different moves available based on what you had in the off hand (nothing, a shield or a torch).

 

However spears, polearms, halberds, tower shields etc. are nice addition but gameplay-wise they are nonsense. The PC and his/her team is not an army, and for small units these big weapons are pretty much useless.

Edited September 24, 2012 by leshy

[Jarmo]

Light one handed

Free offhand to improve balance, fencing. The main advantage is just that it's more convenient to carry only the weapon and not a shield.

This is the gentlemanly way to fight, but not (to my knowledge) something any army have used in large scale. Because it's not that effective.

 

Light or medium one handed with off hand armored or equipped with buckler

Much the same as with previous and probably better in almost every way.

The offhand is used for blocking, the buckler also for attack. Those often had a center spike just for that.

 

Weapon and shield.

Shield gives better cover, but is heavier and slower. Usually when fighting a single opponent, you'd prefer a smaller shield or a buckler.

Big shield is a more passive weapon, better mostly against ranged weapons and also better if you don't have much blocking skills.

 

Medium weapons.

If it's not a very light weapon, you're better off using it with two hands, thus making faster and harder strikes.

There's a cut off point somewhere, a rapier or dagger wouldn't benefit from using two handed style (and wouldn't have big enough handle anyway).

Swords, axes, spears, warhammers.

 

2-handed weapons.

Are basically just the same as medium weapons, there's probably a longer handle and the weapon is bigger in itself.

There's nothing actually demanding the use of two hands, but no matter how strong you are, you'll hit faster and harder with two hands

and a medium size weapon is probably better if you use a shield (maybe not if you have gauntlets of ogre power or something).

 

2 weapons

Well there's that sword and dagger style and some samurai types (Musashi) used a long and a short sword.

But the whole style is still something that's not been common anywhere, ever. And probably not because anyone didn't think of it, ever.

I'd hazard a guess it can be effective if you're skilled, because the other guy is not used to fighting against two weapon fighters.

 

The same goes for many strange weapon styles, if the other guy isn't used to facing what you're fielding, you have an edge.

[Karranthain]

One idea on how to encourage wielding only one weapon : http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60205-weapon-mechanics/page__st__40#entry1203272

 

For an instance,

 

carrying a shield can be tiring and it also limits the wearer's maneuverability. Having penalties for using a shield would also encourage using only a 1-handed weapon, with the second hand free. It could end up being a genuine playstyle option.

[TrashMan]

I say give the P the option to fight this way if he wants, but let the rest of us do as we please. I would hate to have some arbitrary restriction on fighting styles just because some other body doesn't like them.

 

In TOEE I had a fighter rogue with great cleave who used a glaive, if she won initiative there could be several sneak attack-cleave attacks in a row, it was awesome.

 

 

Pole weapons were great in ToEE.

I had a fighter who specilized in cleaving and longspear (which I enchanted to maximize damage, crits and cleaving) - the polearm with the longest reach. Then I'd buff him considerably, hast him and throw an Enlarge Perosn on him.

 

His treat range was HUGE. He could hit anyone in the entire room.

As soon as an enemy moved - Attack of Opportunitny, attack of opportunity, cleave, greater cleave...

 

it was fun to watch as he MURDERED half the room himself

[Gorth]

Depends on the number of arms available for the various races.

[cyberarmy]

Depends on the number of arms available for the various races.

 

OMG for armed races confirmed! O_o

 

Joking aside it would be really nice to wield 4 sabres

[IchigoRXC]

Depends on the number of arms available for the various races.

 

This is so true, dual wielding 2 handed weapons with 4 arms heh :D