Curse

b-M-d · Jun 03, 2006, 03:41 PM // 15:41

After I started playing Guild Wars: Prophecies around 5 months ago, I noticed that hammers are the only 2 handed warrior weapon.

Why are there no 2 handed axes or 2 handed swords?

Sure, hammers are nice, but nothing says "Fear me!" better than a greatsword or a hefty 2 handed axe.

Also, why are katana's in Factions wielded in one hand? (A katana is not normally wielded in one hand, and never with a shield in the other)

Casters have 1 and 2 handed weapons under one attribute. I think that Warriors (and all other professions with Warrior secondary should have the choice between single and 2 handed weapons. The skills don't need much or possibly any changing. Save for maybe disabled shield related skills if wielding a 2handed sword or axe. Also, it would bring more variety and dynamics to the visuals.

What do you think?

lishi · Jun 03, 2006, 04:22 PM // 16:22

becouse the warrior have only 4 attribute line , you dont expect using a single handed sword is the same as using a double handed sword?

lyra_song · Jun 03, 2006, 04:50 PM // 16:50

old suggestion. please read the other threads

Isis Mordecai · Jun 03, 2006, 04:55 PM // 16:55

the reason casters have two handed is a staff is basically a weapon/offhand in one slot which doesnt have armor like a shield does. So they can get away with using two hands, but a warrior's offhand(shield) has armor, i dont wanna see a double handed sword with armor:16 on it.

n not a katana with a shield oh no. never mind mythical creatures and big monsters with magical powers, but a katana and a shield? WTF?.....

b-M-d · Jun 04, 2006, 02:12 AM // 02:12

But don't you think it would only take a minor tweak on the hammer wield system as far as graphics go, retain the skills for sword, minus the shield related ones.

I'm just saying, since there are hammers and they're two handed, why not even it out by making 1 and 2 handed weapons for sword, axe and hammer? even if they made the 2handed sword and axe dmg around the same as hammer, except that its slashing dmg and not blunt. its not that far fetched is it? :P

NatalieD · Jun 04, 2006, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Two-handed weapons would be unbalanced with one-handed weapons if they used the same skills. For it to work they'd have to make all new skills for the new weapons.

Omega X · Jun 04, 2006, 04:25 AM // 04:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieD

Two-handed weapons would be unbalanced with one-handed weapons if they used the same skills. For it to work they'd have to make all new skills for the new weapons.

What's wrong with that. IT'll give more options and variety.

NatalieD · Jun 04, 2006, 04:27 AM // 04:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega X

What's wrong with that. IT'll give more options and variety.

Oh, I'd be all for new skill lines. But that's a lot more work for Anet to do.

Don Zardeone · Jun 04, 2006, 05:21 AM // 05:21

why not give swords and axes a +3 damage increase for use without shield?

Or give them 10% armour penetration for use without shield.
Or 5% to keep hammers on the same level.

No need to change skills if you just give up a shield for +5% ap
Add a few animations that make both hands hold the sword and voila...
They could even do it like longbows vs shortbows.

Shortswords would never be able to be used 2handed while the longsword class of swords could.
It would make shortswords less desired though.

The short class could be these:
- gladius, spatha, phoenix, etc

Long would be:
- fellblade, wingblade, zodiac, gothic, etc

for axes you could have light and heavy axes
light:
- spiked axe, war axe (small ones), celestial, zodiac, sickle (both), dragoncrest

heavy:
- hand axe(krytan, white scythe), gothic, gothic dual, sephis

..

zamial · Jun 04, 2006, 07:11 AM // 07:11

sounds like the start of a new class here.lets call em pikemen.
warriors with 2 handed weapons or spears...like an arrow with more damage and half the range.btw they should get assassin stat armor....

Extreme Days · Jun 04, 2006, 07:23 AM // 07:23

*cough* runescape

seriously... staffs are 2 handed, wands are 1 handed.. next thing you know ppl will want 2 handed wands..

making the sword or axe 2 handed would unbalance the game. the main reason people use hammers is for the knockdowns. why have a 2 handed axe? what would the attack speed be on it? the same as the hammer? less? more?

its too much of a hassle to add that crap when warriors are fine just the way they are.. if it isnt broken dont fix it.

prism2525 · Jun 04, 2006, 09:53 AM // 09:53

And also... see the damage output. 19-35 max for a hammer, 15-22 and 6-28 for sword and axe. It would be unbalanced for hammer wielders to have a shield too.

b-M-d · Jun 04, 2006, 01:25 PM // 13:25

I don't think the skills would need much changing, because all the warrior skills for attacking only have pluses to damage, therefore, adding new weapons to the line up would not take that much work.

ex. Final Thrust: If final thrust hits you deal +1-32 damage, double damage if target's health is below 50%.

the skills can stay the same because it doesn't matter whether the sword is 1 handed or 2 handed.

Lets say a greatsword has the same damage as a hammer (19-35) only difference would be the type of damage, slashing. They could also easily make a 1handed hammer with the same damage as an axe, (6-28)but with blunt damage.

Therefore Final thrust could apply just as easily to a greatsword (19-35) +1-32 dbl when target is below 50% health and so on and so forth.

b-M-d · Jun 04, 2006, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Prism, why would it be unbalanced for hammer wielders to have a shield?

I think its just a simple matter of making a single handed hammer which is actually just (programming wise) an axe as far as ammount of damage is concerned but blunt instead of slashing.

!!! aa !!!! · Jun 04, 2006, 01:39 PM // 13:39

its a 2-handed weapon because if it wasn't it would be rigged if it could knock-dow like that...very exp. players can almost use a hammer better than a sword or an axe...and not becuz it does more dmg...it knock down so the target cannot cast so if u had a shield to it would be unbalanced!

Phades · Jun 04, 2006, 07:23 PM // 19:23

This exists partially due to the theme of the skills behind the weapons, but it also falls to balance for base damage for each weapon. I highly doubt that anyone would pass up the chance for using a 14~15-46~56 damage axe. It would put the damage base up remarkably high.

Knock down skills make more sense with a large 2 handed weapon. Doing the same with a small 1h mallot doesnt make alot of sense. Although, they do have assassins knocking people over with daggers and 1 hand.... Meh

Kha · Jun 04, 2006, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by b-M-d

I don't think the skills would need much changing, because all the warrior skills for attacking only have pluses to damage, therefore, adding new weapons to the line up would not take that much work.

ex. Final Thrust: If final thrust hits you deal +1-32 damage, double damage if target's health is below 50%.

the skills can stay the same because it doesn't matter whether the sword is 1 handed or 2 handed.

Lets say a greatsword has the same damage as a hammer (19-35) only difference would be the type of damage, slashing. They could also easily make a 1handed hammer with the same damage as an axe, (6-28)but with blunt damage.

Therefore Final thrust could apply just as easily to a greatsword (19-35) +1-32 dbl when target is below 50% health and so on and so forth.

This is probably the worst example you could've used. You should've picked a better skill to at least try to make your point seem valid.

The skills are balanced for the weapon damage they use. Final Thrust is meant for at the most a sword that does 15-22 damage. If you increase the damage of the sword, you are increasing the damage of the skill by a good amount, making warriors more powerful and unbalancing the professions. Warriors already do tons of damage if used right.

If a 2-handed sword and a 1-handed sword both had 15-22 damage for max, there really isn't any need to just add them in without logical reason. Anyone who would favor a 2-handed over a 1-handed and shield would obviously be playing just for looks and not for actual skill, and not many groups will want that. And to give 2-handed more AP or something like that to make up for not using a shield would unbalance the fighting system. It's providing more damage than what the skills and weapons are set for. Any warrior using 1-hand in PvP would be a noob, and any warrior using 2-hand in PvE would be a noob.

The reason that casters have wands and staves is that the damage doesn't change. Their skills don't rely on weapons to do the damage. Their weapons are for aiding magic use (recharge, spell cast, added energy, etc).

Now I'm all for two-handed swords and axes, but I'm in no rush for ANet to throw them in just cause I want them. I'll leave it up to them to decide if they want to figure out a way to balance them in (maybe with a new profession or something.)

You have to understand the skill and weapons are balanced the way they are. Changing things just cause it makes sense to you doesn't mean it will actually work in the game. If you really can't understand why there are no 2-handed weapons for Swordsmanship and Axe Mastery, or why there is no 1-handed hammer for Hammer Mastery, then you really need to read up on the skills and actually learn something about the game.

exiled mat · Jun 04, 2006, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Let's shake the earth with your tiny onehanded hammer :P (earth shaker)

The system is "balanced" as it is, so don't screw it now :P

b-M-d · Jun 05, 2006, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kha

If a 2-handed sword and a 1-handed sword both had 15-22 damage for max, there really isn't any need to just add them in without logical reason. Anyone who would favor a 2-handed over a 1-handed and shield would obviously be playing just for looks and not for actual skill, and not many groups will want that. And to give 2-handed more AP or something like that to make up for not using a shield would unbalance the fighting system. It's providing more damage than what the skills and weapons are set for. Any warrior using 1-hand in PvP would be a noob, and any warrior using 2-hand in PvE would be a noob.

When did I say the damage would be equal? I didn't...and there you go with the grossly over used N word. I honestly hate that word and how its tossed around so wantonly in the game. No need to get insulting and hostile.

I was just thinking out loud. I was just an idea, which probably won't happen anyway. Gimme a break. and please lighten up.

jummeth · Jun 05, 2006, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Why has no one thought of this...

If a 2h sword and 1h sword used the same skills, however if the 2h-sword is harder hitting but slower ... w/e

Just charge your adren on the faster hitting and higher def (due to shield) 1h-sword, adren full? Swap weapon Boom your adreno spike just got double damage.

The reason you can't do that effectively now is, if you switch weapon, due to lack of weapon mastery, your attacks effectively do no damage. Therefore balancing the extra attack rate and defence of the shield.

Its a bit like people frenzying when spiking to get their Evis and exe off in just under a second. You sacrifice a bit of defence for an attack power boost. Un-balanced.