Why would you chose a two handed weapon with no Increased Reach?

[dododad]

I'd like a mod that changes the pole axe to just slash with increased range because then it would get some use.  There would then be a reach weapon for each damage type.

 

That's not a poleaxe then. They were no larger than two handers, but they had a pointy end as well, making them ideal in ground man to man heavy armoured combat. Just think of them as swiss army knife designed for opening some tricky cans.

 

Ideally they'd have pierce/slash/crush. But that would take away the usefulness of estoc. So it is definitely was a balancing decision. But when you look at it from that angle, you quickly notice that balancing wasn't well thought out from the onset.

 

Whole grouped weapons design makes little sense. I see that they wanted to make more weapons available per specialization, but much better solution would be in giving free selection to player in deciding individual weapons. Same as in d&d, just give bigger selection of proficiencies. 

[Matt516]

I really with the Estoc weren't such a no brained choice... The ludicrous DR pen combined with the Poleaxe in the weapon focus means the Greatsword really gets shafted. Estoc needs to be toned down so players who want to play reasonably optimally have at least some choice in which 2H weapon to take. :/

[Caerdon]

I really with the Estoc weren't such a no brained choice... The ludicrous DR pen combined with the Poleaxe in the weapon focus means the Greatsword really gets shafted. Estoc needs to be toned down so players who want to play reasonably optimally have at least some choice in which 2H weapon to take. :/

 

I totally agree. 3 DRB should be enough for estoc, 2 for stiletto.

 

I also think slashing weapons should be buffed a bit. Slash/Pierce (Best) is an almost non-existent benefit over plain Pierce, as there are very few enemies that are more vulnerable to slashing than piercing.

[Emerwyn]

My main character was a Greatsword medium-armored Fighter. Constant 50+ damage hits that use the lowest DR of the enemy is just so powerful in PotD difficulty. I'm actually the contrary, I don't see the reach in some polearms advantageous enough to warrant using them.

[Katarack21]

Should be chopping damage instead of crushing. A sharp edge hitting with force chops, it does not crush (like a hammer does).

 

Actually, battle axes and such depended more on sheer weight and mass for their damage then anything else, with the sharp edge designed to concentrate this mass. This is especially true in the middle ages when large axe-type weapons were designed for a combination of crunching and slicing plate armor.

[Luckmann]

 

Should be chopping damage instead of crushing. A sharp edge hitting with force chops, it does not crush (like a hammer does).

 

Actually, battle axes and such depended more on sheer weight and mass for their damage then anything else, with the sharp edge designed to concentrate this mass. This is especially true in the middle ages when large axe-type weapons were designed for a combination of crunching and slicing plate armor.

 

This ^

 

Basically all middle-age heavy weapons were all about the crushing. Even large two-handed swords used from horseback was all about concentrating the blows and crush through armour than it was about slicing and dicing.

 

The fact that Great Swords (...why not Greatswords?) in PoE even does Slashing/Piercing is really just in order to cater to fantasy tropes, rather than historical accuracy. I expect even Sawyer, who supposedly studies history, to know this. There's so many weapons that should actually be dealing crushing damage more than anything else, and really heavy armour should make you practically immune to slashing damage.

 

...that last part though.. I'd be perfectly fine with. Armours need to be tuned upwards in terms of specialization.

[Caerdon]

Basically all middle-age heavy weapons were all about the crushing. Even large two-handed swords used from horseback was all about concentrating the blows and crush through armour than it was about slicing and dicing.

 

The fact that Great Swords (...why not Greatswords?) in PoE even does Slashing/Piercing is really just in order to cater to fantasy tropes, rather than historical accuracy. I expect even Sawyer, who supposedly studies history, to know this. There's so many weapons that should actually be dealing crushing damage more than anything else, and really heavy armour should make you practically immune to slashing damage.

 

...that last part though.. I'd be perfectly fine with. Armours need to be tuned upwards in terms of specialization.

Greatswords would definitely deal slashing/piercing damage to unarmoured targets - and in any case I don't think it'd be a case of fantasy tropes but simply the wish to have all damage types represented.

 

And maybe heavy armour doesn't make you immune to slashing damage precisely because part of the damage comes through as crushing damage.

 

Anyway, slashing damage is already the worst damage type, so it really shouldn't be nerfed any further. Gameplay is more important than strict realism - and I love realism in games.

[dododad]

 

 

Should be chopping damage instead of crushing. A sharp edge hitting with force chops, it does not crush (like a hammer does).

 

Actually, battle axes and such depended more on sheer weight and mass for their damage then anything else, with the sharp edge designed to concentrate this mass. This is especially true in the middle ages when large axe-type weapons were designed for a combination of crunching and slicing plate armor.

 

This ^

 

Basically all middle-age heavy weapons were all about the crushing. Even large two-handed swords used from horseback was all about concentrating the blows and crush through armour than it was about slicing and dicing.

 

The fact that Great Swords (...why not Greatswords?) in PoE even does Slashing/Piercing is really just in order to cater to fantasy tropes, rather than historical accuracy. I expect even Sawyer, who supposedly studies history, to know this. There's so many weapons that should actually be dealing crushing damage more than anything else, and really heavy armour should make you practically immune to slashing damage.

 

...that last part though.. I'd be perfectly fine with. Armours need to be tuned upwards in terms of specialization.

 

 

That's actually not true. In middle ages heavy armour was expensive, and most foot soldiers wore no better protection that some leather, so sabres were extensively used even in the west, while straight sword itself, was also primarily used as a cutting weapon. You really could not use it in any other way while mounted anyway.

 

But middle ages really aren't the proper era for the game. Game has arquebuses, estocs, rapiers, greatswords and pikes. That fairly accurately places it to the beginning of renaissance. A time when heavy armour became so elaborate that it brought with it whole new weaponry to battle it, when greatswords were introduced to battle pike walls, when gunpowder first entered the battlefield, and when rapier first showed itself as a duelling weapon. In fact, both armoury and weaponry in game can be almost precisely placed in real timeline. Offcouse, when used in a game system, that requires balance, but just seeing game use proper weaponry, instead of huge fantasy battleaxes that every other game has, is refreshing.

[Daemonjax]

 

I'd like a mod that changes the pole axe to just slash with increased range because then it would get some use.  There would then be a reach weapon for each damage type.

 

That's not a poleaxe then. They were no larger than two handers, but they had a pointy end as well, making them ideal in ground man to man heavy armoured combat. Just think of them as swiss army knife designed for opening some tricky cans.

 

Ideally they'd have pierce/slash/crush. But that would take away the usefulness of estoc. So it is definitely was a balancing decision. But when you look at it from that angle, you quickly notice that balancing wasn't well thought out from the onset.

 

Whole grouped weapons design makes little sense. I see that they wanted to make more weapons available per specialization, but much better solution would be in giving free selection to player in deciding individual weapons. Same as in d&d, just give bigger selection of proficiencies. 

 

 

Pole axe is a polearm, which all have reach in D&D.  

 

This may not be D&D (but, really, it is).

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

Should be chopping damage instead of crushing. A sharp edge hitting with force chops, it does not crush (like a hammer does).

 

Actually, battle axes and such depended more on sheer weight and mass for their damage then anything else, with the sharp edge designed to concentrate this mass. This is especially true in the middle ages when large axe-type weapons were designed for a combination of crunching and slicing plate armor.

 

This ^

 

Basically all middle-age heavy weapons were all about the crushing. Even large two-handed swords used from horseback was all about concentrating the blows and crush through armour than it was about slicing and dicing.

 

The fact that Great Swords (...why not Greatswords?) in PoE even does Slashing/Piercing is really just in order to cater to fantasy tropes, rather than historical accuracy. I expect even Sawyer, who supposedly studies history, to know this. There's so many weapons that should actually be dealing crushing damage more than anything else, and really heavy armour should make you practically immune to slashing damage.

 

...that last part though.. I'd be perfectly fine with. Armours need to be tuned upwards in terms of specialization.

 

 

That's actually not true. In middle ages heavy armour was expensive, and most foot soldiers wore no better protection that some leather, so sabres were extensively used even in the west, while straight sword itself, was also primarily used as a cutting weapon. You really could not use it in any other way while mounted anyway.

 

But middle ages really aren't the proper era for the game. Game has arquebuses, estocs, rapiers, greatswords and pikes. That fairly accurately places it to the beginning of renaissance. A time when heavy armour became so elaborate that it brought with it whole new weaponry to battle it, when greatswords were introduced to battle pike walls, when gunpowder first entered the battlefield, and when rapier first showed itself as a duelling weapon. In fact, both armoury and weaponry in game can be almost precisely placed in real timeline. Offcouse, when used in a game system, that requires balance, but just seeing game use proper weaponry, instead of huge fantasy battleaxes that every other game has, is refreshing.

 

 

I wasn't talking about most foot soldiers, I was talking about middle-age heavy weapons. The setting itself is anachronistic. The point was that the majority of those weapons were all about crushing. That's not to say that other weapons, such as sabres and rapiers and so on, were crushing weapons, or middle-age weapons, or even intended for use against heavy armour.

 

The overall point was that despite this, the game is based in fantasy tropes, not historical accuracy, hence why Great Swords (...greatswords) still ends up with Slashing/Piercing, despite the fact that most of the historical ones probably couldn't slice through a cheese without making it explode like a melon.

[Caerdon]

The overall point was that despite this, the game is based in fantasy tropes, not historical accuracy, hence why Great Swords (...greatswords) still ends up with Slashing/Piercing, despite the fact that most of the historical ones probably couldn't slice through a cheese without making it explode like a melon.

 

And again, slashing and piercing is exactly what a swordsman would use against a lightly armoured opponent (including presumably all sorts of fantastical beasts), and a greatsword is perfectly capable of slicing through all kinds of cheeses and melons without exploding them.

 

Against a heavily armoured opponent things would, of course, be different. Piercing would absolutely play a part still - usually preceded by some wrestling and half-swording - but crushing using crossguard and pommel would grow in prominence.

[Katarack21]

 

The overall point was that despite this, the game is based in fantasy tropes, not historical accuracy, hence why Great Swords (...greatswords) still ends up with Slashing/Piercing, despite the fact that most of the historical ones probably couldn't slice through a cheese without making it explode like a melon.

 

And again, slashing and piercing is exactly what a swordsman would use against a lightly armoured opponent (including presumably all sorts of fantastical beasts), and a greatsword is perfectly capable of slicing through all kinds of cheeses and melons without exploding them.

 

Against a heavily armoured opponent things would, of course, be different. Piercing would absolutely play a part still - usually preceded by some wrestling and half-swording - but crushing using crossguard and pommel would grow in prominence.

 

Against a heavily armored opponent, all else being equal, you want a flanged mace. Preferably with a giant spike on the top. It'll shatter and crush even the heaviest armor, and the spike can can do equally well against joints and other weak spots.

 

Nobody is questioning the slashing and piercing being used against people in leather armor or mail armor. My point was that halberds, pollaxes, battle axes, and to some extent great swords were not designed primarily as slicing weapons nor intended for use to slice with. The creation of heavy plate armor lead to the direct increase in size from the armoring sword to the long sword to the greatsword and then the estoc, and the invention of various subtypes of crushing and bludgeoning weapons with pierce capability. Slashing weapons were used by foot soldiers against foot soldiers, not against armored opponents. Eventually longbows, crossbows, and then especially firearms lead back towards less armor and more diverse weapons.

 

Eora takes place in a hodgpodge world where many of these types of weapons and armor, which are separated in our world by hundreds of years, all exist at once.

[Caerdon]

Against a heavily armored opponent, all else being equal, you want a flanged mace. Preferably with a giant spike on the top. It'll shatter and crush even the heaviest armor, and the spike can can do equally well against joints and other weak spots.

Nobody is questioning the slashing and piercing being used against people in leather armor or mail armor. My point was that halberds, pollaxes, battle axes, and to some extent great swords were not designed primarily as slicing weapons nor intended for use to slice with. The creation of heavy plate armor lead to the direct increase in size from the armoring sword to the long sword to the greatsword and then the estoc, and the invention of various subtypes of crushing and bludgeoning weapons with pierce capability. Slashing weapons were used by foot soldiers against foot soldiers, not against armored opponents. Eventually longbows, crossbows, and then especially firearms lead back towards less armor and more diverse weapons.

 

Eora takes place in a hodgpodge world where many of these types of weapons and armor, which are separated in our world by hundreds of years, all exist at once.

 

Uh... why are you telling me all that? I'm not arguing with you.

 

Yeah, of course you'd want a mace. I was simply commenting on how a greatsword would've been used against an armoured opponent, supposedly in a situation where better options weren't available. I disagree with Luckmann as he says that a greatsword dealing slashing/piercing was there "just in order to cater to fantasy tropes" and that it was primarily used to "crush through armour". Slashing/piercing is exactly what a sword does to lightly armoured opponents - which, historically, would've been the primary target for a knight armed with a greatsword - and a greatsword just isn't particularly good at "crushing" - which is why a knight armed with one would've used other methods against a heavily armoured opponent: wrestling, halfswording, pommel strikes, mordau etc.

 

I agree with most of what you say, but somewhat disagree when it comes to axes. While late medieval axes definitely evolved to take on plate armour, this is not true of all medieval axes (like the Dane Axe and its descendants), many of which were absolutely meant for cutting and "slicing" (or "chopping" or whatever you want to call it). Of the three damage types in PoE, slashing is clearly the closest to what an axe would do to most opponents.

[dododad]

 

 

I'd like a mod that changes the pole axe to just slash with increased range because then it would get some use.  There would then be a reach weapon for each damage type.

 

That's not a poleaxe then. They were no larger than two handers, but they had a pointy end as well, making them ideal in ground man to man heavy armoured combat. Just think of them as swiss army knife designed for opening some tricky cans.

 

Ideally they'd have pierce/slash/crush. But that would take away the usefulness of estoc. So it is definitely was a balancing decision. But when you look at it from that angle, you quickly notice that balancing wasn't well thought out from the onset.

 

Whole grouped weapons design makes little sense. I see that they wanted to make more weapons available per specialization, but much better solution would be in giving free selection to player in deciding individual weapons. Same as in d&d, just give bigger selection of proficiencies. 

 

 

Pole axe is a polearm, which all have reach in D&D.  

 

This may not be D&D (but, really, it is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should be chopping damage instead of crushing. A sharp edge hitting with force chops, it does not crush (like a hammer does).

 

Actually, battle axes and such depended more on sheer weight and mass for their damage then anything else, with the sharp edge designed to concentrate this mass. This is especially true in the middle ages when large axe-type weapons were designed for a combination of crunching and slicing plate armor.

 

This ^

 

Basically all middle-age heavy weapons were all about the crushing. Even large two-handed swords used from horseback was all about concentrating the blows and crush through armour than it was about slicing and dicing.

 

The fact that Great Swords (...why not Greatswords?) in PoE even does Slashing/Piercing is really just in order to cater to fantasy tropes, rather than historical accuracy. I expect even Sawyer, who supposedly studies history, to know this. There's so many weapons that should actually be dealing crushing damage more than anything else, and really heavy armour should make you practically immune to slashing damage.

 

...that last part though.. I'd be perfectly fine with. Armours need to be tuned upwards in terms of specialization.

 

 

That's actually not true. In middle ages heavy armour was expensive, and most foot soldiers wore no better protection that some leather, so sabres were extensively used even in the west, while straight sword itself, was also primarily used as a cutting weapon. You really could not use it in any other way while mounted anyway.

 

But middle ages really aren't the proper era for the game. Game has arquebuses, estocs, rapiers, greatswords and pikes. That fairly accurately places it to the beginning of renaissance. A time when heavy armour became so elaborate that it brought with it whole new weaponry to battle it, when greatswords were introduced to battle pike walls, when gunpowder first entered the battlefield, and when rapier first showed itself as a duelling weapon. In fact, both armoury and weaponry in game can be almost precisely placed in real timeline. Offcouse, when used in a game system, that requires balance, but just seeing game use proper weaponry, instead of huge fantasy battleaxes that every other game has, is refreshing.

 

 

I wasn't talking about most foot soldiers, I was talking about middle-age heavy weapons. The setting itself is anachronistic. The point was that the majority of those weapons were all about crushing. That's not to say that other weapons, such as sabres and rapiers and so on, were crushing weapons, or middle-age weapons, or even intended for use against heavy armour.

 

The overall point was that despite this, the game is based in fantasy tropes, not historical accuracy, hence why Great Swords (...greatswords) still ends up with Slashing/Piercing, despite the fact that most of the historical ones probably couldn't slice through a cheese without making it explode like a melon.

 

 

Historical great swords were slicing weapons. Their main, and pretty much the only role on a battlefield was battling pike walls, that is cutting them down, you certainly don't crush a pike. And in duels they were used much like poleaxes as wrestling tools, with added piercing option.

 

Here's a good example:

Both armours were designed for the great Field of Cloth of Gold tournament. First, unused one, was designed to leave no openings in combating poleaxes, while the later had the added skirt to combat slashes of the greatsword. Mind also that in this case greatsword was a sporting choice. No one was meant to be hurt, so it was chosen precisely because it was the safer option of the two.

[Rumpelstilskin]

I'm actually a bit confused about the purpose of all 2-handed weapons. Ranged weapons clearly outdamage them, and they can be shot from a safe distance without re-positioning. Seems like the main purpose of melee weapons is to draw aggro due to engagement, but you'd definitely want a shield if you are tanking.

[scrotiemcb]

First off, this whole chopping debate is stupid. Against an unarmored opponent, you pierce, slash, or crush; against an armoured one you pierce, chop, or crush. Functionally, chopping vs slashing reflects the difference in method you'd attempt to use fighting armoured vs unarmored opponents... but if you had a slashing weapon designed for unarmored opponents, you'd end up trying to chop an armored opponent, and if you had a chopping weapon designed for armored opponents you'd end up trying to slash unarmored opponents. Thus, slashing and chopping are essentially the same damage type; the only "difference" should be in character animations, representing the difference in tactics employed.

 

More to the original point of the thead: increased range weapons are very strong in PoE. I legitimately have trouble imagining a current scenario where any non-reach weapon should be used over a reach one. If you wanna DPS, you wanna be safe; if you wanna tank, you won't be going two-handed anyway.

[Wulfram]

I liked my two handed paladin off tank as a supplement to Eder, at least for open environments.  Probably not optimal, but it worked on hard.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

I'd like a mod that changes the pole axe to just slash with increased range because then it would get some use.  There would then be a reach weapon for each damage type.

 

That's not a poleaxe then. They were no larger than two handers, but they had a pointy end as well, making them ideal in ground man to man heavy armoured combat. Just think of them as swiss army knife designed for opening some tricky cans.

 

Ideally they'd have pierce/slash/crush. But that would take away the usefulness of estoc. So it is definitely was a balancing decision. But when you look at it from that angle, you quickly notice that balancing wasn't well thought out from the onset.

 

Whole grouped weapons design makes little sense. I see that they wanted to make more weapons available per specialization, but much better solution would be in giving free selection to player in deciding individual weapons. Same as in d&d, just give bigger selection of proficiencies. 

 

 

Pole axe is a polearm, which all have reach in D&D.  

 

This may not be D&D (but, really, it is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should be chopping damage instead of crushing. A sharp edge hitting with force chops, it does not crush (like a hammer does).

 

Actually, battle axes and such depended more on sheer weight and mass for their damage then anything else, with the sharp edge designed to concentrate this mass. This is especially true in the middle ages when large axe-type weapons were designed for a combination of crunching and slicing plate armor.

 

This ^

 

Basically all middle-age heavy weapons were all about the crushing. Even large two-handed swords used from horseback was all about concentrating the blows and crush through armour than it was about slicing and dicing.

 

The fact that Great Swords (...why not Greatswords?) in PoE even does Slashing/Piercing is really just in order to cater to fantasy tropes, rather than historical accuracy. I expect even Sawyer, who supposedly studies history, to know this. There's so many weapons that should actually be dealing crushing damage more than anything else, and really heavy armour should make you practically immune to slashing damage.

 

...that last part though.. I'd be perfectly fine with. Armours need to be tuned upwards in terms of specialization.

 

 

That's actually not true. In middle ages heavy armour was expensive, and most foot soldiers wore no better protection that some leather, so sabres were extensively used even in the west, while straight sword itself, was also primarily used as a cutting weapon. You really could not use it in any other way while mounted anyway.

 

But middle ages really aren't the proper era for the game. Game has arquebuses, estocs, rapiers, greatswords and pikes. That fairly accurately places it to the beginning of renaissance. A time when heavy armour became so elaborate that it brought with it whole new weaponry to battle it, when greatswords were introduced to battle pike walls, when gunpowder first entered the battlefield, and when rapier first showed itself as a duelling weapon. In fact, both armoury and weaponry in game can be almost precisely placed in real timeline. Offcouse, when used in a game system, that requires balance, but just seeing game use proper weaponry, instead of huge fantasy battleaxes that every other game has, is refreshing.

 

 

I wasn't talking about most foot soldiers, I was talking about middle-age heavy weapons. The setting itself is anachronistic. The point was that the majority of those weapons were all about crushing. That's not to say that other weapons, such as sabres and rapiers and so on, were crushing weapons, or middle-age weapons, or even intended for use against heavy armour.

 

The overall point was that despite this, the game is based in fantasy tropes, not historical accuracy, hence why Great Swords (...greatswords) still ends up with Slashing/Piercing, despite the fact that most of the historical ones probably couldn't slice through a cheese without making it explode like a melon.

 

 

Historical great swords were slicing weapons. Their main, and pretty much the only role on a battlefield was battling pike walls, that is cutting them down, you certainly don't crush a pike. And in duels they were used much like poleaxes as wrestling tools, with added piercing option.

 

Here's a good example:

Both armours were designed for the great Field of Cloth of Gold tournament. First, unused one, was designed to leave no openings in combating poleaxes, while the later had the added skirt to combat slashes of the greatsword. Mind also that in this case greatsword was a sporting choice. No one was meant to be hurt, so it was chosen precisely because it was the safer option of the two.

 

You're talking about their use by the Doppelsöldner's. That's pretty much considered a legend by most historians.

[dododad]

Widely refuted, just like the claim that they were too heavy to wield.

 

 

 

 

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.VSsaYpN8E1o

[Katarack21]

Yes, and I can show you lithographs of King Arthur, too. Still generally considered legends by most historians. You're right, of course, about them not being to heavy to use (with the exception of a few ceremonial blades).

 

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/1_5_Two-Handed-Swords-and-the-Myth-of-the-Doppel.html

Edited April 13, 2015 by Katarack21

[dododad]

You are talking about legends, and throwing around 'most historians' without naming them, and then equate perfectly valid proof with lithographs of King Arthur.

[Katarack21]

You are talking about legends, and throwing around 'most historians' without naming them, and then equate perfectly valid proof with lithographs of King Arthur.

What proof? A picture of something that I already told you is a legend? That's not proof. That's just a picture, of a ****ing legend. You posted a historical breakdown claiming what you've said, I posted one proving that it's a legend. Your "great swords designed to take down pikemen" is as historically accurate as Robin Hood, is my point.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Katarack21

[Stun]

I'm actually a bit confused about the purpose of all 2-handed weapons. Ranged weapons clearly outdamage them

That depends on the Ranged Weapon, And it depends on the class, And it depends on the Talents, And it depends on the Enemy.

 

First, The only ranged weapons that 'out damage' 2-handers are the super slow ones (the rifles and X-bows). And that being the case, we'd need to start discussing things in "DPS" before we could determine whether a specific ranged weapon is really doing more damage than the specific 2-hander it's being compared to.

 

Second, there are some classes who are built to do LOT more damage in a melee situation than in ranged, and vice versa. (Rangers, for example, are designed to do a ton more damage with ranged weapons, than, say, Fighters. But nothing does more weapon damage than a well built Rogue using a Pike or Esoc. (and someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but a Barbarian's carnage does not work with range weapons at all)

 

Third, there are more Melee-only +Damage talents than there are ranged only +Damage talents. Savage attack, for example, grants +20% melee damage, and it stacks with every other general +Damage talent

 

Fourth, 2-handers offer a wider variety of damage types than the high damage ranged weapons. And those high damage range weapons also suffer critical damage penalties.

 

Fifth, it's hard to sustain effective range weapon use in those situations where you have enemies that teleport right to you. I'm not sure what effect that has on Damage output, but the popular playstyle in this game is typically: Open up an encounter with your Big guns, then switch to melee when the enemy is on top of you.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Stun

[dododad]

Yes, just sidestep my request for naming your sources.

 

As for that picture that you continue to clam as a legend. It comes from Chronik des Johannes Stumpf, and Johannes Stumpf was not a fairy tales writer, but a perfectly respectable historian.

 

You have a full scan of it here:

http://www.e-rara.ch/id/1525949

[Ichthyic]

 

I really with the Estoc weren't such a no brained choice... The ludicrous DR pen combined with the Poleaxe in the weapon focus means the Greatsword really gets shafted. Estoc needs to be toned down so players who want to play reasonably optimally have at least some choice in which 2H weapon to take. :/

 

I totally agree. 3 DRB should be enough for estoc, 2 for stiletto.

 

I also think slashing weapons should be buffed a bit. Slash/Pierce (Best) is an almost non-existent benefit over plain Pierce, as there are very few enemies that are more vulnerable to slashing than piercing.

 

some of those enemies are actually pretty significant though...

 

Adra Dragon comes to mind.

 

but yeah, it's a short list including, completely:

 

spore monsters, revenants.

 

yeah, that's it.

 

is it worth focusing on a weapon that has both slash and pierce?  nope.

 

but at least your great sword becomes useful to chop mushrooms and dragons made of soft rock.

 

 

oh, and the reason the estoc has dr bypass (armor piercing), is, as someone mentioned, that Sawyer likes the history of weapons, and the Estoc was specifically designed to be a superior weapon against armor.

 

I very much doubt that he will want to change that.

 

you *might* be able to get him to agree to add range to a poleaxe, or increase the base damage on a greatsword slightly though.

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2015 by Ichthyic