Two Handed Weapons

[jacobgold]

Two Handed Weapons

I believe a major problem of two handed weapons in diablo 2 is that they do not provide an equivalent value to the two equipment slots they require, nor does dual wielding weapons on a barbarian seem to make up for the lack of a shield.

In diablo 3, two handed weapons should be just as useful as using both a sword and a shield, and dual wielding should provide an offensive boost with an equivalent combat value to using a shield.

Im not sure how this would be done without first playing, but I can make suggestions based on what Ive seen in diablo 2.

Modifiers on two handed weapons should be stronger, and the base damage should be more significant. A 300% enhanced damage modifier on a 1 handed weapon should be 500% on a two handed weapon. 4% life leech should be 6-7%, etc...

 

[Nimbostratus]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

I think the problem with two-handers in D2 was that they suffered from a "multi-nerf." Using a two-handed weapon, you gained a bit of damage, and you lost:

• Vitality (due to far higher stat requirements)
• Blocking (shield)
• Resistances (shield)
• Attack Speed (usually)

Any one of those would be a suitable cost for the extra damage. But holy crap, not all of them at once!

 

[konfeta]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

It's a number thing. Using a two hander is supposed to be a decision to sacrifice defense for offensive power. However...

1. You could easily get a powerful enough single handed weapon to slaughter monsters at super speed.
2. Defense that was provided by a shield was unreachable without one.
3. Why use a two hander when dual wielding gives you obscenely higher damage output with more magic bonuses stack on top of it to actually somewhat make up for loss of a shield?

So 2-hander's bonus was superfluous, and for players that really wanted damage fiends, double wielding outdid it. Not that 2-hander weren't viable, it's just the other 2 options were far, far better. You could simply give better spell bonuses on the big babies to compensate.... however:


Personally, I would give 2-handers better crowd control. So the choice is between defense, single-target DPS, and AoE goodness. Which is what the Blizzard seems to be doing anyway - Shockwave/Cleave for the Barbarian or Spell Impact for Wizard (using manlier weapons means manlier fir... sorry,arcaneballs, apparently).

The way I see it, it would balance out this way:
1. Shield users have the lowest damage output, but because they can stand toe-to-toe longer than other variants they end up doing great damage.
2. Dual Wield users have the highest damage output, but they suffer more damage for it - they go faster but at higher risk and have to disengage for downtime/healing.
3. Two-Handed users will have the average damage output, but they have strongest AoE attacks to make up for it and the nature of their weapon (slow, high damage hits) allows them to apply that damage while dancing away from a counter attack - hit and run if you will.

All three archetypes can more or less cut through hordes due to the Healing Orb mechanic, all three archetypes can deal with bosses with different strategies.

Granted, crossing skills from different tress will muddle that up (Frenzy for 2-handers to steroid their DPS; damage reducing skills for dual wielders, etc.), but that is a question of balancing numbers. Also, it will allow a wider variety in builds. A super mobile Barbarian with Leap, Charge, and Whirlwind would rule, IMO.

 

[Funkopotamus]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

I think all weapons should have a block on them to account for... blocking... with your weapon. Shields would have the highest block and dual wielding would block more/faster than 2 handed weapons. And the damage from lowest to highest would go sword/shield, dual, 2 handed.

Though I'm not sure which would do more damage in a full blow, the 2 one handers or 1 two hander. Even hypothetically I'm not sure how math would work when it applies to wounds.

 

[Brother Laz]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

The problem with 2h weapons is one thing:


...shield block...

Nothing beats 75% chance to take no damage. In Median I nerfed shield block to the point where you needed all your points into dex to get max block and people still went for shields even when the best they could hope for was 20% block.

Hell, assassin naginata weapons (highest damage weapons in the game, double hit against the intended target and AoE cleave damage!) are still considered not as good as claw/shield because zomg shield has block on it.


Also, staves need more than just a potentially higher skill bonus. In Median staves have a huge base cast speed (shorter base animation) which it is nearly double that of 1h+shield and they can have up to +12 skills and up to +100% spell damage. And still they're only a slight bit ahead of orb/shield.

 

[konfeta]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Well, shield block getting a fundamental nerf, so I wouldn't worry about that aspect.

 

[Akse]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Well actually 2h weapons get more bonuses.

The base damage is higher so 200% ed will be more extra damage.. same goes for 4% leech.. it will give you more hp per hit because of the higher damage.

For a barbarian 2hand has always been the best choice for PvM at least if you used whirlwind which didn't gain any real benefits from shield as long as you had enough leech and HP.

 

[jacobgold]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Well actually 2h weapons get more bonuses.

The base damage is higher so 200% ed will be more extra damage.. same goes for 4% leech.. it will give you more hp per hit because of the higher damage.

For a barbarian 2hand has always been the best choice for PvM at least if you used whirlwind which didn't gain any real benefits from shield as long as you had enough leech and HP.

Whirlwind is the one skill in the game of D2 that makes a 2H weapon worth using, and that is only because WW mostly eliminates the drawbacks from using a 2H weapon.

 

[Akse]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Whirlwind is the one skill in the game of D2 that makes a 2H weapon worth using, and that is only because WW mostly eliminates the drawbacks from using a 2H weapon.

Yeh in D2 all we need is WW.. who bothers to hit monsters 1 by 1 when there are thousands of them.. good buy for mouse and fingers

idk maybe they figure out something nice for D3.. there will be some skills maybe that are better to use with 2h and some that are better with 1h.

 

[Dimmu]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Just give 2-handers some parrying properties, or at least give a character or two a passive skill that lets them parry with either dual wielding or 2-handers.

 

[jacobgold]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Just give 2-handers some parrying properties, or at least give a character or two a passive skill that lets them parry with either dual wielding or 2-handers.

My problem with skill based parry is that characters have to spend points into a skill to accomplish something that anyone who is actually trained to use a weapon does normally. Its like asking that other classes be made to put points into a shield skill to block.

Take the assassin duel claw blocking ability for instance. Why use that ability when you can save yourself skill points and just use a shield. Dual wielding in D2 can be summed up as just an IAS bonus, and not even a good one because if you don't reach a breakpoint, there is no bonus and you get only negatives.

If 2H weapons and dual wielding give an arc attack (I think the barb was doing this in the video) that hits multiple targets, and 1h weapons do not, that is good.

Personally, I believe that all weapons should carry an innate block percentage. A 1h short sword from act1 might only have 1% on it, but it should still be there.

 

[Starving_Poet]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Remember the Monk from Hellfire?

When he used a staff in melee he had the chance of hitting multiple enemies per swing - granted it's not an apples for apples comparison, but it's a approach that has been used in the past successfully.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

My problem with skill based parry is that characters have to spend points into a skill to accomplish something that anyone who is actually trained to use a weapon does normally. Its like asking that other classes be made to put points into a shield skill to block.

Take the assassin duel claw blocking ability for instance. Why use that ability when you can save yourself skill points and just use a shield. Dual wielding in D2 can be summed up as just an IAS bonus, and not even a good one because if you don't reach a breakpoint, there is no bonus and you get only negatives.

If 2H weapons and dual wielding give an arc attack (I think the barb was doing this in the video) that hits multiple targets, and 1h weapons do not, that is good.

Personally, I believe that all weapons should carry an innate block percentage. A 1h short sword from act1 might only have 1% on it, but it should still be there.

i think all weapons should have a parry % on them and give some characters a skill to add to the parry, however no matter how hard you train parry it should never be equal to blocking

 

[Ishtor]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

2 handed weapons usefullness really depended on what class you were and how you used them.

I used one on my paly before the came out with the rune word that gave everyone BO. I still kept on for charge rushing opponent when pvp, mostly use shield and sword on most of the time.

Barb i duel wiled 2 handed swords, but the damage they dealt was reduced that way.

used 2 handed wepons on my shapeshifting druid because i believe you can not block with the shield while in wolf form. i could be wrong on that one.

 

[Dimmu]

Re: Two Handed Weapons

Take the assassin duel claw blocking ability for instance. Why use that ability when you can save yourself skill points and just use a shield. Dual wielding in D2 can be summed up as just an IAS bonus, and not even a good one because if you don't reach a breakpoint, there is no bonus and you get only negatives.

Well in D2, clawblock also blocked spells. Also, iirc you had a 57% chance to block with one point in clawblock after all the +skill bonuses on a fully equipped trapper or hybrid. So essentially you're getting a 57% chance to block ANYTHING with 1 point invested, of course assuming you can afford that kind of gear, really it was much like holy shield on a paladin. Plus with a trapper you could get much better damage bonuses with an extra claw rather than a shield. And remember there were only 2 classes that could actually dual wield at all, assassin and barb, both of which were doing twice as much damage with whirlwind with 2 weapons. Since whirlwind only recieved IAS bonuses from weapons (IAS on gloves or amulet or whatever have NO effect whatsoever on WW for those that don't know) you were also usually dependent on a second weapon to hit your IAS breakpoint anyway.
Now there's nothing wrong with wanting a trapper with that insanely high fcr breakpoint, like 132 or something i think, but at the end of the day clawblock is just a much better option.
Barb is debatable depending on what you're using it for. PvM or melee duels, yeah i guess you'd want a shield, but for regular dueling you need that beast/grief combo.
I kind of forget sometimes that not everyone is a PvP nerd like me i guess but the clawblock thing still stands.

used 2 handed wepons on my shapeshifting druid because i believe you can not block with the shield while in wolf form. i could be wrong on that one.

You can block while in wolf, but an eth, upped, zodded ribcracker is just so satisfying to use that it makes it worth it not to block.

But enough mind-numbing D2 knowledge and number crunching. Sure, give 2-handers an innate blocking potential, but they should definetly give skills to a character or two that provide incentive to use them or dual wield.
Staves need a major overhaul too, they should give huge +spell damage for magic users and have a small chance to block to make up for the lack of a shield.