Curse

Raz Silverwing · Aug 19, 2005, 02:36 AM // 02:36

How about a weapon that you have to have 1 point in the primary attributte? Like for the warrior: claymore (req. 1 strength)

emil knight · Aug 19, 2005, 03:11 AM // 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raz Silverwing

How about a weapon that you have to have 1 point in the primary attributte? Like for the warrior: claymore (req. 1 strength)

There are many no req weapons... are you asking for a high damage/no req weapon? If so I could see the balance issues with something like that.

Flame · Aug 19, 2005, 03:17 AM // 03:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by emil knight

There are many no req weapons... are you asking for a high damage/no req weapon? If so I could see the balance issues with something like that.

He wants weapons that require primary attributes. And I know exactly how this will turn out. Someone will make, for example, an Elementalist/Monk that is realy a Monk. *gasp*, who would ever think it could come to that?

emil knight · Aug 19, 2005, 03:26 AM // 03:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame

He wants weapons that require primary attributes. And I know exactly how this will turn out. Someone will make, for example, an Elementalist/Monk that is realy a Monk. *gasp*, who would ever think it could come to that?

Heh, my bad... I misread his idea. They make shields and focus items this way but not weapons. He mentioned a req of 1 which I've never seen. I assumed incorrectly that he was just asking for lower reqs.

Still, I'm not sure what this would do for the game. If you are a Warrior, wouldn't you focus at least a few points into one of the weapons skills? I mean if you had a sword, I would think you would have at least 3-4 points in your swords skills at a minimum.

Has anyone build a successful Warrior with only Strength, Tactics and skills from thier secondary? If so, I'd like to hear about THAT build. Seriously, it might be an interesting read.

Flame · Aug 19, 2005, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Shield Warrior?

WAIT! Droknar's Runners! They're successful...right?

This would not add anything to the game, it's entirely pointless. Almost every character has at least one point in their primary attribute, so it would just be adding a few new weapons...

HawkofStorms · Aug 19, 2005, 04:48 AM // 04:48

Yes, but it would be a few new weapons nobody else could use but your class (expect for the obvious W/R who has a 1 in strength and everything else in ranger skills to use a W weapon). Of course, Rangers with bows sort of have the same thing already.

Raz Silverwing · Aug 19, 2005, 02:59 PM // 14:59

Just a stupid idea

Horribly_Good · Aug 24, 2005, 09:54 AM // 09:54

That’s an awful idea. Consider the Pro’s and Con’s before you make assumptions and jump to conclusions.

Tuoba Hturt Eht · Aug 24, 2005, 11:31 AM // 11:31

How about Weapons for Warriors that require 9 points or more in Strength?

A weapon that only primary Warriors can use, that would make Warriors more unique eh? Perhaps more overpowered?

Maybe a new 2-handed weapon?
A 'two-handed sword' type?

At the moment:
Swords, Axes ~ 1.33s
Hammers ~ 1.75s ? (correct me if I am wrong)

The cool down for this 'two-handed sword' would be in between?
Perhaps be:
1.55s
1.60s
1.65s

The damage would be lower than Hammers:
Hammers: 19-35

Perhaps two-handed swords get something like:
20-30 (too powerful?)
20-27
22-25

Examples for different kind of 'two-handed swords'
Great Sword
Bastard Sword
(maybe can 'borrow' names from Diablo II)
(In fact, in Diablo II, Flameberg is a two-handed sword)

If don't want to use the weapon type 'two-handed swords', then perhaps classify it as 'heavy weapons'?

For 'heavy weapons', maybe the cool down be longer than hammers, and the damage be higher?

Hammers 1.75s (correct me if I am wrong)
Heavy Weapons be:
2.00s ?
1.80s
1.85s ?
1.90s
1.95s ?

Damage be a bit higher?
Hammers: 19-35
Heavy Weapons:
25-32 ?

Example of 'Heavy Weapons'.
Big Club (Very Big Club)
Executioner Axe (Very Big Axe)
Great Sword (Very Big Sword)
etc

Discuss.
Flame.

Cheers.